# The Constitution  --  Merely A Guide?



## Sonny Clark

Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?

Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.

EXAMPLES:
Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics

Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.


Your Thoughts ?


----------



## Votto

Sonny Clark said:


> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?


The Constitution is like the Bible.  They are both a warning which most of the time goes unheeded.

In government, no one believes in either.


----------



## Sonny Clark

Votto said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is like the Bible.  They are both a warning which most of the time goes unheeded.
> 
> In government, no one believes in either.
Click to expand...

I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sonny Clark said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is like the Bible.  They are both a warning which most of the time goes unheeded.
> 
> In government, no one believes in either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.
Click to expand...


dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.

Do you understand now?


----------



## Sonny Clark

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is like the Bible.  They are both a warning which most of the time goes unheeded.
> 
> In government, no one believes in either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.
> 
> Do you understand now?
Click to expand...

What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sonny Clark said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is like the Bible.  They are both a warning which most of the time goes unheeded.
> 
> In government, no one believes in either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.
> 
> Do you understand now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
Click to expand...


too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!

r


----------



## Sonny Clark

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is like the Bible.  They are both a warning which most of the time goes unheeded.
> 
> In government, no one believes in either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.
> 
> Do you understand now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
Click to expand...

Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sonny Clark said:


> Well, what about the Bill of Rights?s.



too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism, Bill of Rights!!( An idiot liberal like you can talk  here and carry a gun-proof positive)

Do you get it now???


----------



## Sonny Clark

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights?s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism, Bill of Rights!!( An idiot liberal like you can talk  here and carry a gun-proof positive)
> 
> Do you get it now???
Click to expand...

But wait, please. Yes, we have 3 branches of government, very true. But who do they serve? How do they serve? And, do all Americans benefit from their service equally, fairly, and justly? If so, please explain how and in what way(s)? The Bill of Rights has been infringe upon, and parts of it have been basically made null and void. Do you know about the "privacy" part that we no longer have? Do you? FYI ---- I am NOT a Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Right Wing, Left Wing, Independent, nor anything other than an American for America, period. And, I'm certainly no idiot, as you can plainly see. Also, name calling and personal attacks are very silly and childish. They are totally uncalled for. Can you have a conversation in an adult and civil manner? Just curious.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sonny Clark said:


> But wait, please. Yes, we have 3 branches of government, very true. But who do they serve?.



too stupid!! the question was not who do the branches serve but do they still exist and do they serve the original purpose of  of keeping power divided. Nice try at changing subject, again, when you lose.

See why we are positve that liberallism is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sonny Clark said:


> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution?.




Will someone tell this perfect idiot that the Bill fo Rights is part of the Constitution/ OMG!!


----------



## rightwinger

The Constitution is not the law, it is a framework of the Constitution of our government


----------



## Sonny Clark

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> But wait, please. Yes, we have 3 branches of government, very true. But who do they serve?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!! the question was not who do the branches serve but do they still exist and do they serve the original purpose of  of keeping power divided. Nice try at changing subject, again, when you lose.
> 
> See why we are positve that liberallism is based in pure ignorance?
Click to expand...

Wait, hold on here. I never said, not once that the three branches were married together. Yes, of course they are separate branches of the government. Everyone knows that. Oh, but they do NOT serve the original intent, not hardly. And, I wasn't changing subjects, not at all. Where did I change subjects? Please tell me where I changed subjects. Again, I am NOT a LIBERAL. Also, I'm NOT ignorant, not in the least. Your childish and silly name calling and personal attacks are uncalled for, and add absolutely nothing to the conversation, nothing. Please try to have a conversation as an adult in a civil manner. Thanks.


----------



## Sonny Clark

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will someone tell this perfect idiot that the Bill fo Rights is part of the Constitution/ OMG!!
Click to expand...

I have never ever said the Bill of Right wasn't a part of the Constitution. And, there is no way that you can show that I said such a thing. If you're going to make Sh*t up, at least try something that's close to real, please.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sonny Clark said:


> I have never ever said the Bill of Right wasn't a part of the Constitution



dear, I didn't say you said it wasn't part of the Constitution!! You asked if it was part of the Constitution and I merely invited someone to answer the idiotic question you asked. THen like an idiot you changed the subject again. 

You seem very very slow; this is exactly what we expect from a liberal.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sonny Clark said:


> I never said, not once that the three branches were married together.



dear, no one said that you said it. Everytime you look stupid you change the subject!!


----------



## Sonny Clark

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never ever said the Bill of Right wasn't a part of the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, I didn't say you said it wasn't part of the Constitution!! You asked if it was part of the Constitution and I merely invited someone to answer the idiotic question you asked. THen like an idiot you changed the subject again.
> 
> You seem very very slow; this is exactly what we expect from a liberal.
Click to expand...

But, I already knew that the Bill of Rights were in the Constitution. I was asking you if you knew it. I wasn't asking you because I had a question as to whether it was or it wasn't. You misunderstood what I said, or took it the wrong way. And, once again, I will point out that not once have I changed the subject matter of this conversation, and you can NOT show where I have. Also, your name calling and personal attacks makes you look very silly and childish. Your age?


----------



## Sonny Clark

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said, not once that the three branches were married together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, no one said that you said it. Everytime you look stupid you change the subject!!
Click to expand...

Ah, but you implied it. Go back and read what you said about it, please. Again, I have NOT changed the subject, and you can NOT show where I have. Also, I'm no idiot, not by a long shot.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sonny Clark said:


> But, I already knew that the Bill of Rights were in the Constitution. I was asking you if you knew it.?



on what basis if not your pure and total ignorance? How stupid does one have to be to waste time asking that question?


----------



## Synthaholic

Sonny Clark said:


> Has the Constitution become merely a guide,


To Republicans?  Apparently.

Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Synthaholic said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide,
> 
> 
> 
> To Republicans?  Apparently.
> 
> Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.
Click to expand...


why is it a duty??


----------



## Sonny Clark

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, I already knew that the Bill of Rights were in the Constitution. I was asking you if you knew it.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on what basis if not your pure and total ignorance? How stupid does one have to be to waste time asking that question?
Click to expand...

You encouraged the questions by your comments. I was trying to get you to explain your side in logical and rational terms. But, instead, you resorted to name calling, personal attacks, and playing dodge with the questions I asked of you. Now, who's dime is that on?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sonny Clark said:


> I was trying to get you to explain your side in logical and rational terms.



what side you idiot? I did not raise the question about whether the Bill was part of Constitution


----------



## Sonny Clark

Synthaholic said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide,
> 
> 
> 
> To Republicans?  Apparently.
> 
> Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's merely a guide it seems, the Constitution does not stand on its own, apparently, according to the government. Remember, politics is self-governed. In most cases, especially as of late, they make the rules as they go.


----------



## gipper

The constitution was meaningless before BO....now it has disappeared.


----------



## Sonny Clark

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide,
> 
> 
> 
> To Republicans?  Apparently.
> 
> Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why is it a duty??
Click to expand...

It's "duty' Simply because they take an oath to uphold the Constitution, serve the people, and preform their duties as outlines by the Constitution.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sonny Clark said:


> [ In most cases, especially as of late, they make the rules as they go.



liberals want a loose reading of the Constitution so it can mean anything they want. While Republicans want a strict reading since they share the basic principles of our Founders about govt being the source of evil in human history.

Now even you can understand why our liberals spied for Stalin and Hitler and elected Obama?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

gipper said:


> The constitution was meaningless before BO....now it has disappeared.



disappeared?? democracy, 3 branches, enumerated powers, federalism, Bill of Rights, civilian control of military, etc etc.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sonny Clark said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide,
> 
> 
> 
> To Republicans?  Apparently.
> 
> Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why is it a duty??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's "duty' Simply because they take an oath to uphold the Constitution, serve the people, and preform their duties as outlines by the Constitution.
Click to expand...


care to tell what duty you are talking about?? AUMF??? you never know what the subject is so cant make sense,ever.


----------



## Sonny Clark

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was trying to get you to explain your side in logical and rational terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what side you idiot? I did not raise the question about whether the Bill was part of Constitution
Click to expand...

I'm talking about your side of the subject concerning foreign trade. Go back and see what started this conversation between us. The conversation drifted to the Constitution, which I also questioned you on. Go back and read the entire conversation, please.


----------



## Sonny Clark

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide,
> 
> 
> 
> To Republicans?  Apparently.
> 
> Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why is it a duty??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's "duty' Simply because they take an oath to uphold the Constitution, serve the people, and preform their duties as outlines by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> care to tell what duty you are talking about?? AUMF??? you never know what the subject is so cant make sense,ever.
Click to expand...

What do you think the duty of an elected official is? Please tell me that you know and are just kidding.


----------



## Sonny Clark

gipper said:


> The constitution was meaningless before BO....now it has disappeared.


Thank you. CORRECT !!!!!!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

“Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?”

No.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as originally intended by the Framers, where current Constitutional jurisprudence reflects the principles of freedom and liberty enshrined in the Founding Document.

As Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in _Lawrence_:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?”
> 
> No.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as originally intended by the Framers, where current Constitutional jurisprudence reflects the principles of freedom and liberty enshrined in the Founding Document.
> 
> As Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in _Lawrence_:
> 
> “Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”



Hi C_Clayton_Jones
Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution as limited only to case law precedents
reminds me of people who teach the Bible by looking only at Jesus as a moral example of right and wrong actions and teachings.

There is also a whole OTHER level to both the Bible laws and Constitutional laws
as representing Laws given by God which humans are going through a process of
learning to follow and to fulfill.

This goes BEYOND just the written word and literal history.

You are missing the SPIRIT of the laws yet you expect to represent
what the Constitution means to people?

I think not.

This does not work with the Bible to teach it that way and think you are  teaching what Christianity means in full.
And for the same reason does not work with Constitutional laws that bear more weight and authority than
what you can spell out with legal precedence. Sorry but this explains why different audiences are talking past each other.

We are barely talking about the same things.
We might intersect and agree on some points
but you are leaving out so much that are the real issue for other people.

You might as well be an atheist trying to interpret the Bible for a Christian who talks to God every day about
what it means to that person.

That is not even the same conversation, sorry!

Thank you CCJones I am beginning to understand you and Dante more and more
and hope you are getting what I am saying, too, that we are coming from two
totally different traditions and belief systems.

Even more reason we should "separate church and state" and not impose
one group on the other, but stick to where we agree to make public laws based on that,
and keep the places we disagree in private and don't try to make laws based on that.
We'd be doing each other a great disservice if we keep imposing our own
interpretations on each other because of our different belief systems.
That is unconstitutional to use law or govt to do that.

We surely need to separate these schools of thoughts
as separate political religions or beliefs and prevent further imposition,
exclusion or discrimination through govt in violation of First and Fourteenth protections of the law.


----------



## Sonny Clark

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?”
> 
> No.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as originally intended by the Framers, where current Constitutional jurisprudence reflects the principles of freedom and liberty enshrined in the Founding Document.
> 
> As Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in _Lawrence_:
> 
> “Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”


And, it's happening as we speak. Thanks for your response.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sonny Clark said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide,
> 
> 
> 
> To Republicans?  Apparently.
> 
> Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why is it a duty??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's "duty' Simply because they take an oath to uphold the Constitution, serve the people, and preform their duties as outlines by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> care to tell what duty you are talking about?? AUMF??? you never know what the subject is so cant make sense,ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think the duty of an elected official is? Please tell me that you know and are just kidding.
Click to expand...


care to tell us what duty you are talking about?? AUMF??? you never know what the subject is so cant make sense,ever. See why we say slow?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

“Hi C_Clayton_Jones
Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution...”

Incorrect.

It is not 'my assessment.'

It is the settled and accepted meaning, nature, and understanding of the Constitution and its case law as acknowledged by American jurists.


----------



## Sonny Clark

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> To Republicans?  Apparently.
> 
> Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is it a duty??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's "duty' Simply because they take an oath to uphold the Constitution, serve the people, and preform their duties as outlines by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> care to tell what duty you are talking about?? AUMF??? you never know what the subject is so cant make sense,ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think the duty of an elected official is? Please tell me that you know and are just kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> care to tell us what duty you are talking about?? AUMF??? you never know what the subject is so cant make sense,ever. See why we say slow?
Click to expand...

Pleeeeease. Look up the duties of members of Congress and the duties of the president. They are readily available online. They are not hard to find. And, again, please refrain from your "slow" BS. It doesn't impress anyone and makes you look so silly and immature. Please try to act adult and civil on here. People will enjoy having conversations with you and respect you and what you say a lot more also. Name calling and personal attacks are for kids, school yard kids. It's totally uncalled for on these forums where people try to discuss important issues that affect all of us. Thank you, much appreciated.


----------



## Sonny Clark

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?”
> 
> No.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as originally intended by the Framers, where current Constitutional jurisprudence reflects the principles of freedom and liberty enshrined in the Founding Document.
> 
> As Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in _Lawrence_:
> 
> “Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi C_Clayton_Jones
> Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution as limited only to case law precedents
> reminds me of people who teach the Bible by looking only at Jesus as a moral example of right and wrong actions and teachings.
> 
> There is also a whole OTHER level to both the Bible laws and Constitutional laws
> as representing Laws given by God which humans are going through a process of
> learning to follow and to fulfill.
> 
> This goes BEYOND just the written word and literal history.
> 
> You are missing the SPIRIT of the laws yet you expect to represent
> what the Constitution means to people?
> 
> I think not.
> 
> This does not work with the Bible to teach it that way and think you are  teaching what Christianity means in full.
> And for the same reason does not work with Constitutional laws that bear more weight and authority than
> what you can spell out with legal precedence. Sorry but this explains why different audiences are talking past each other.
> 
> We are barely talking about the same things.
> We might intersect and agree on some points
> but you are leaving out so much that are the real issue for other people.
> 
> You might as well be an atheist trying to interpret the Bible for a Christian who talks to God every day about
> what it means to that person.
> 
> That is not even the same conversation, sorry!
> 
> Thank you CCJones I am beginning to understand you and Dante more and more
> and hope you are getting what I am saying, too, that we are coming from two
> totally different traditions and belief systems.
> 
> Even more reason we should "separate church and state" and not impose
> one group on the other, but stick to where we agree to make public laws based on that,
> and keep the places we disagree in private and don't try to make laws based on that.
> We'd be doing each other a great disservice if we keep imposing our own
> interpretations on each other because of our different belief systems.
> That is unconstitutional to use law or govt to do that.
> 
> We surely need to separate these schools of thoughts
> as separate political religions or beliefs and prevent further imposition,
> exclusion or discrimination through govt in violation of First and Fourteenth protections of the law.
Click to expand...

Thank you.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Hi C_Clayton_Jones
> Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution...”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> It is not 'my assessment.'
> 
> It is the settled and accepted meaning, nature, and understanding of the Constitution and its case law as acknowledged by American jurists.



Sure, so you and these other people agree to that.

Just like the people, not just atheists but also Muslims and some Jehovah Witnesses,
who only see Jesus as a man setting good examples to follow.

You and these jurists who only follow the letter of the law
are of one belief system.

And people who believe the spirit of the law comes from God and Nature
and we are attempting to document and follow the laws in that spirit
are another branch. Those who put the SPIRIT of the Constitution first
and then the letter has to follow.

Versus those who will follow the letter as long as Courts and
legislatures pass it, that's what makes it law.

You and your whole ilk constitute one denomination
probably the secularists who take things literally,
and the others who go by the spirit of the laws
will not accept things as Constitutional just because Congress or Courts approve it.

The process must be finished by consensus, and where
they AGREE it is lawful, then that will clearly be established
as Constitutional. If they DON'T agree there is the risk of
imposing one party's political beliefs over another which
is unconstitutional on another level. I UNDERSTAND that
you and others like you DON'T accept this interpretation
until it is established, so that is ANOTHER area that
discriminates and puts YOUR beliefs above mine.
Until I establish my interpretation as equally my right to 
exercise (this silly notion of actually RESPECTING and INCLUDING
people's political beliefs equally as religious beliefs, what a crazy idea, right?), 
of course, the other way dominates and is enforced.

[I'm not just picking on you BTW.
I caught other people saying that as long as States
voted on banning gay marriage then it is lawful? No!
That is unconstitutional for the same reasons imposing
gay marriage establishes a biased belief through govt.
The law must be neutral, and banning is exclusive and discriminatory.

And I also nixed that, citing that slavery laws were passed
and enforced but those violated natural laws of equality
and were oppressive practices by putting one person's beliefs and values
over another's right to defend their own personhood and own their own body.

To be fully Constitutional it must meet the spirit and the letter of the law.
And i find it dangerous just to depend on the letter
because anyone can pass anything by majority rule and make errors
in judgment by imposing a bias that is Unconstitutional.]


----------



## regent

Are we obeying laws today that in the future may be declared unconstitutional?


----------



## rightwinger

The Constitution is a framework for how our government is constituted

The bill of rights places constraints on that government


----------



## emilynghiem

regent said:


> Are we obeying laws today that in the future may be declared unconstitutional?


Id say forcing ppl to pay for executions they dont believe in instead of allowing their taxes to pay for alternatives violates religious freedom. And similar with penalizing other ways to pay for health care and only exempting insurance and religious groups approved by govt whileregulating others more restrictively is discriminating by creed.


----------



## Sonny Clark

regent said:


> Are we obeying laws today that in the future may be declared unconstitutional?


It's very possible, very.


----------



## Liminal

Sonny Clark said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is like the Bible.  They are both a warning which most of the time goes unheeded.
> 
> In government, no one believes in either.
> 
> 
> 
> I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.
> 
> Do you understand now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?


----------



## Dante

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?”
> 
> No.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as originally intended by the Framers, where current Constitutional jurisprudence reflects the principles of freedom and liberty enshrined in the Founding Document.
> 
> As Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in _Lawrence_:
> 
> “Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”


How do you square Justice Kennedy with Justice Black when it comes to privacy?

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

*Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. *

 Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.​


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.
> 
> Do you understand now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...


Many of the Framers thought they were self evident and didn't need to be in the Constitution.


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.
> 
> Do you understand now?
> 
> 
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the Framers thought they were self evident and didn't need to be in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Why?  Because the Bill of Rights somehow detracts from the true meaning of the Constitution?


----------



## Sonny Clark

Liminal said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.
> 
> Do you understand now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.


----------



## Sonny Clark

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the Framers thought they were self evident and didn't need to be in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  Because the Bill of Rights somehow detracts from the true meaning of the Constitution?
Click to expand...

How so ?? Please explain. Thanks.


----------



## Liminal

Sonny Clark said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.
> 
> Do you understand now?
> 
> 
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application.   Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid  confusion and conflict.


----------



## Dante

Sonny Clark


Sonny Clark said:


> *1)* Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?
> 
> *2)* What about The Bill of Rights?
> 
> *3)* Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens?
> 
> *4*Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times?
> 
> *5)* Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?


*1) *Not merely, but it has been used as a guide since it's ratification. So I ask you, what is it you are truly asking?

*2)* What about it? It was part of a compromise. Many framers and those tasked with ratification thought it unnecessary.

*3) *We do not make detours around the Constitution. The Constitution exists to serve the people, not the other way around. We ask the Court to decide constitutional issues when we disagree over interpretations. It has been this way since day one. 

Stretching the meanings of the text has been a tradition going back to the beginning too. Only strict constructionists would argue we should cut off our collective nose to spite our collective face

*4)* We have since day one

*5)* The US Constitution was designed to be altered -- through the amendment process, so you're not making any sense


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the Framers thought they were self evident and didn't need to be in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  Because the Bill of Rights somehow detracts from the true meaning of the Constitution?
Click to expand...

The Constitution would NEVER have been ratified without the later inclusion of the Bill of Rights. That was the deal. _Quid pro quo_ -- so to speak


----------



## Dante

Sonny Clark said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.
> 
> Do you understand now?
> 
> 
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
Click to expand...

The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application.   Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid  confusion and conflict.
Click to expand...


you are so confused it is incredible. You are looking for a black and white strict constructionist view of life that just doesn't exist. The Bill of Rights was not included in the final drafts. Most of the framers thought righst were self evident and that codifying some would be construed by people like you to think those not codified were not or guaranteed or protected . there is more to the story, but Dante didn't sign up to be your private history teacher


----------



## norwegen

Liminal said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application.   Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid  confusion and conflict.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights does not give form to the Constitution.  It's an addendum.  As Dante implies, an afterthought, really, insisted on by the anti-Federalists (who included, in the end, James Madison).

The Constitution is principally a job description for officers and judges and the procedures for selecting those officers and judges.  That the text of the document does not authorize the Congress to abridge the rights of the people implies that a bill of rights is implicit in the text.

Thank God for the distrust of the anti-Federalists.


----------



## Dante

norwegen said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application.   Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid  confusion and conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights does not give form to the Constitution.  It's an addendum.  As Dante implies, an afterthought, really, insisted on by the anti-Federalists (who included, in the end, James Madison).
> 
> The Constitution is principally a job description for officers and judges and the procedures for selecting those officers and judges.  That the text of the document does not authorize the Congress to abridge the rights of the people implies that a bill of rights is implicit in the text.
> 
> Thank God for the distrust of the anti-Federalists.
Click to expand...

agree with one caveat: 

Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist 
republicans with the later Federalist Party

Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist  thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far


----------



## norwegen

Dante said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application.   Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid  confusion and conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights does not give form to the Constitution.  It's an addendum.  As Dante implies, an afterthought, really, insisted on by the anti-Federalists (who included, in the end, James Madison).
> 
> The Constitution is principally a job description for officers and judges and the procedures for selecting those officers and judges.  That the text of the document does not authorize the Congress to abridge the rights of the people implies that a bill of rights is implicit in the text.
> 
> Thank God for the distrust of the anti-Federalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> agree with one caveat:
> 
> Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
> republicans with the later Federalist Party
> 
> Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist  thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far
Click to expand...

Madison underwent  a transformation after the Federalist Papers, allying with the Republicans in 1792 (or thereabouts).  Granted, it was after the new government was created, but he may have been leaning more toward George Mason at the Philadelphia Convention than anyone else (as everyone knows (and by everyone, of course, I mean me)).


----------



## Dante

norwegen said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application.   Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid  confusion and conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights does not give form to the Constitution.  It's an addendum.  As Dante implies, an afterthought, really, insisted on by the anti-Federalists (who included, in the end, James Madison).
> 
> The Constitution is principally a job description for officers and judges and the procedures for selecting those officers and judges.  That the text of the document does not authorize the Congress to abridge the rights of the people implies that a bill of rights is implicit in the text.
> 
> Thank God for the distrust of the anti-Federalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> agree with one caveat:
> 
> Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
> republicans with the later Federalist Party
> 
> Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist  thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Madison underwent  a transformation after the Federalist Papers, allying with the Republicans in 1792 (or thereabouts).  Granted, it was after the new government was created, but he may have been leaning more toward George Mason at the Philadelphia Convention than anyone else (as everyone knows (*and by everyone, of course, I mean me*)).
Click to expand...

*in bold: *  so very Dante! 

Madison's views more than Hamilton's views were being defended in the Federalist (papers). Madison won more battles (am I mistaken?) during the convention than Hamilton did.

What Madison later did was become a Democratic-Republican (not to be confused with republican Republican). If I am not mistaken, both Democrat and Republican parties today sprung out of the Democratic-Republican party.

It is Dante's opinion that Madison remained a Federalist republican to his dying day. This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison


----------



## norwegen

Dante said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application.   Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid  confusion and conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bill of Rights does not give form to the Constitution.  It's an addendum.  As Dante implies, an afterthought, really, insisted on by the anti-Federalists (who included, in the end, James Madison).
> 
> The Constitution is principally a job description for officers and judges and the procedures for selecting those officers and judges.  That the text of the document does not authorize the Congress to abridge the rights of the people implies that a bill of rights is implicit in the text.
> 
> Thank God for the distrust of the anti-Federalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> agree with one caveat:
> 
> Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
> republicans with the later Federalist Party
> 
> Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist  thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Madison underwent  a transformation after the Federalist Papers, allying with the Republicans in 1792 (or thereabouts).  Granted, it was after the new government was created, but he may have been leaning more toward George Mason at the Philadelphia Convention than anyone else (as everyone knows (*and by everyone, of course, I mean me*)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *in bold: *  so very Dante!
> 
> Madison's views more than Hamilton's views were being defended in the Federalist (papers). Madison won more battles (am I mistaken?) during the convention than Hamilton did.
> 
> What Madison later did was become a Democratic-Republican (not to be confused with republican Republican). If I am not mistaken, both Democrat and Republican parties today sprung out of the Democratic-Republican party.
> 
> It is Dante's opinion that Madison remained a Federalist republican to his dying day. This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison
Click to expand...

No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).

Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.


----------



## Dante

norwegen said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application.   Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid  confusion and conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights does not give form to the Constitution.  It's an addendum.  As Dante implies, an afterthought, really, insisted on by the anti-Federalists (who included, in the end, James Madison).
> 
> The Constitution is principally a job description for officers and judges and the procedures for selecting those officers and judges.  That the text of the document does not authorize the Congress to abridge the rights of the people implies that a bill of rights is implicit in the text.
> 
> Thank God for the distrust of the anti-Federalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> agree with one caveat:
> 
> Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
> republicans with the later Federalist Party
> 
> Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist  thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Madison underwent  a transformation after the Federalist Papers, allying with the Republicans in 1792 (or thereabouts).  Granted, it was after the new government was created, but he may have been leaning more toward George Mason at the Philadelphia Convention than anyone else (as everyone knows (*and by everyone, of course, I mean me*)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *in bold: *  so very Dante!
> 
> Madison's views more than Hamilton's views were being defended in the Federalist (papers). Madison won more battles (am I mistaken?) during the convention than Hamilton did.
> 
> What Madison later did was become a Democratic-Republican (not to be confused with republican Republican). If I am not mistaken, both Democrat and Republican parties today sprung out of the Democratic-Republican party.
> 
> It is Dante's opinion that Madison remained a Federalist republican to his dying day. This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).
> 
> Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.
Click to expand...

stop playing games. Want to call it the Jefferson party?


----------



## Dante

norwegen from the Miller Center (great source btw)

*Campaigns and Elections*
*The Campaign and Election of 1808*
In line with the precedent established by Washington, Thomas Jefferson refused to stand for a third term, endorsing instead his friend Madison as his successor. Jefferson's wish was fulfilled by a Democratic-Republican caucus in Congress, although not without some opposition. The fifty-seven-year-old Madison, along with Jefferson's vice president, George Clinton, headed into the contest fearing the worst.

Jefferson's embargo of all trade with England and France had devastated the nation. New England states spoke openly of secession from the Union. The Federalists, convinced that they would ride the national anger to victory, renominated—without the benefit of a formal caucus—their 1804 contenders, Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina and Rufus King of New York

American President James Madison Campaigns and Elections​_now what sophistry do you norwie, want to throw this way?_


----------



## norwegen

Dante said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights does not give form to the Constitution.  It's an addendum.  As Dante implies, an afterthought, really, insisted on by the anti-Federalists (who included, in the end, James Madison).
> 
> The Constitution is principally a job description for officers and judges and the procedures for selecting those officers and judges.  That the text of the document does not authorize the Congress to abridge the rights of the people implies that a bill of rights is implicit in the text.
> 
> Thank God for the distrust of the anti-Federalists.
> 
> 
> 
> agree with one caveat:
> 
> Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
> republicans with the later Federalist Party
> 
> Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist  thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Madison underwent  a transformation after the Federalist Papers, allying with the Republicans in 1792 (or thereabouts).  Granted, it was after the new government was created, but he may have been leaning more toward George Mason at the Philadelphia Convention than anyone else (as everyone knows (*and by everyone, of course, I mean me*)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *in bold: *  so very Dante!
> 
> Madison's views more than Hamilton's views were being defended in the Federalist (papers). Madison won more battles (am I mistaken?) during the convention than Hamilton did.
> 
> What Madison later did was become a Democratic-Republican (not to be confused with republican Republican). If I am not mistaken, both Democrat and Republican parties today sprung out of the Democratic-Republican party.
> 
> It is Dante's opinion that Madison remained a Federalist republican to his dying day. This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).
> 
> Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop playing games. Want to call it the Jefferson party?
Click to expand...

They were Republicans.  Libertarians, we might even say.  They created a radical new government, a limited, innocuous government seated in a new city, set apart from society not to shape it but rather to preserve it.


----------



## norwegen

Dante said:


> norwegen from the Miller Center (great source btw)
> 
> *Campaigns and Elections*
> *The Campaign and Election of 1808*
> In line with the precedent established by Washington, Thomas Jefferson refused to stand for a third term, endorsing instead his friend Madison as his successor. Jefferson's wish was fulfilled by a Democratic-Republican caucus in Congress, although not without some opposition. The fifty-seven-year-old Madison, along with Jefferson's vice president, George Clinton, headed into the contest fearing the worst.
> 
> Jefferson's embargo of all trade with England and France had devastated the nation. New England states spoke openly of secession from the Union. The Federalists, convinced that they would ride the national anger to victory, renominated—without the benefit of a formal caucus—their 1804 contenders, Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina and Rufus King of New York
> 
> American President James Madison Campaigns and Elections​_now what sophistry do you norwie, want to throw this way?_


You can copy and paste with the best of them, that's no lie.


----------



## Dante

norwegen said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> agree with one caveat:
> 
> Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
> republicans with the later Federalist Party
> 
> Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist  thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far
> 
> 
> 
> Madison underwent  a transformation after the Federalist Papers, allying with the Republicans in 1792 (or thereabouts).  Granted, it was after the new government was created, but he may have been leaning more toward George Mason at the Philadelphia Convention than anyone else (as everyone knows (*and by everyone, of course, I mean me*)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *in bold: *  so very Dante!
> 
> Madison's views more than Hamilton's views were being defended in the Federalist (papers). Madison won more battles (am I mistaken?) during the convention than Hamilton did.
> 
> What Madison later did was become a Democratic-Republican (not to be confused with republican Republican). If I am not mistaken, both Democrat and Republican parties today sprung out of the Democratic-Republican party.
> 
> It is Dante's opinion that Madison remained a Federalist republican to his dying day. This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).
> 
> Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop playing games. Want to call it the Jefferson party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were Republicans.  Libertarians, we might even say.  They created a radical new government, a limited, innocuous government seated in a new city, set apart from society not to shape it but rather to preserve it.
Click to expand...


poppycock


----------



## Dante

norwegen said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen from the Miller Center (great source btw)
> 
> *Campaigns and Elections*
> *The Campaign and Election of 1808*
> In line with the precedent established by Washington, Thomas Jefferson refused to stand for a third term, endorsing instead his friend Madison as his successor. Jefferson's wish was fulfilled by a Democratic-Republican caucus in Congress, although not without some opposition. The fifty-seven-year-old Madison, along with Jefferson's vice president, George Clinton, headed into the contest fearing the worst.
> 
> Jefferson's embargo of all trade with England and France had devastated the nation. New England states spoke openly of secession from the Union. The Federalists, convinced that they would ride the national anger to victory, renominated—without the benefit of a formal caucus—their 1804 contenders, Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina and Rufus King of New York
> 
> American President James Madison Campaigns and Elections​_now what sophistry do you norwie, want to throw this way?_
> 
> 
> 
> You can copy and paste with the best of them, that's no lie.
Click to expand...

your opinions are shittier than your copying and pasting skills

true story


----------



## norwegen

Dante said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen from the Miller Center (great source btw)
> 
> *Campaigns and Elections*
> *The Campaign and Election of 1808*
> In line with the precedent established by Washington, Thomas Jefferson refused to stand for a third term, endorsing instead his friend Madison as his successor. Jefferson's wish was fulfilled by a Democratic-Republican caucus in Congress, although not without some opposition. The fifty-seven-year-old Madison, along with Jefferson's vice president, George Clinton, headed into the contest fearing the worst.
> 
> Jefferson's embargo of all trade with England and France had devastated the nation. New England states spoke openly of secession from the Union. The Federalists, convinced that they would ride the national anger to victory, renominated—without the benefit of a formal caucus—their 1804 contenders, Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina and Rufus King of New York
> 
> American President James Madison Campaigns and Elections​_now what sophistry do you norwie, want to throw this way?_
> 
> 
> 
> You can copy and paste with the best of them, that's no lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your opinions are shittier than your copying and pasting skills
> 
> true story
Click to expand...

My limited copying and pasting ability is to boast of.  It forces me to speak for myself.


----------



## Dante

norwegen said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen from the Miller Center (great source btw)
> 
> *Campaigns and Elections*
> *The Campaign and Election of 1808*
> In line with the precedent established by Washington, Thomas Jefferson refused to stand for a third term, endorsing instead his friend Madison as his successor. Jefferson's wish was fulfilled by a Democratic-Republican caucus in Congress, although not without some opposition. The fifty-seven-year-old Madison, along with Jefferson's vice president, George Clinton, headed into the contest fearing the worst.
> 
> Jefferson's embargo of all trade with England and France had devastated the nation. New England states spoke openly of secession from the Union. The Federalists, convinced that they would ride the national anger to victory, renominated—without the benefit of a formal caucus—their 1804 contenders, Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina and Rufus King of New York
> 
> American President James Madison Campaigns and Elections​_now what sophistry do you norwie, want to throw this way?_
> 
> 
> 
> You can copy and paste with the best of them, that's no lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your opinions are shittier than your copying and pasting skills
> 
> true story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My limited copying and pasting ability is to boast of.  It forces me to speak for myself.
Click to expand...

So when confronted with relevant facts your style is to pull your head out of your arse and put your shitty fingers in your ears and over your mouth and shake your head back and forth?

cool

are you a carnival act?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

norwegen said:


> No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).
> 
> Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.



Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison



Madison and Jefferson were blood brothers and both especially Jefferson hated Hamilton for his big govt ideas. Liberal versus conservative was the theme of the revolution and indeed the theme of human history.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> The Constitution would NEVER have been ratified without the later inclusion of the Bill of Rights. That was the deal. _Quid pro quo_ -- so to speak



what??? The real issue was whether to impower govt to guard basic rights or whether such impowerment  would be subverted and be used to take away rights.The most basic stuff like separation of powers was designed to limit the monster as much as possible.

Modern treasonous liberals live only to empower the monster!!


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).
> 
> Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.
Click to expand...

please go back to the rubber room


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).
> 
> Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please go back to the rubber room
Click to expand...

Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).
> 
> Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please go back to the rubber room
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.
Click to expand...


The correct terms would be liberal and conservative, words for a political philosophy or set of beliefs not a political group. The American revolutionists were liberals, the conservatives opposed to the revolution, "Tories." Rare is it to find conservatives as revolutionists if they are the ruling class. The winning revolutionists then created a government so limited in power that it didn't work. Another group labeled the framers then created a new government with infinitely more power and we still use that government today.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> . The American revolutionists were  liberals, the conservatives opposed to the revolution,



you mean classical liberals for very very tiny govt, the opposite of modern liberals who love bigger and bigger govt. This is why they spied for Hitler and Stalin..

Here's a book on it to help you with your ABC's

Epstein’s most recent book, _The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government_, seeks to explain and defend his theory of constitutional understanding.

see why we say slow??


----------



## rightwinger

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> . The American revolutionists were  liberals, the conservatives opposed to the revolution,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean classical liberals for very very tiny govt, the opposite of modern liberals who love bigger and bigger govt. This is why they spied for Hitler and Stalin..
> 
> Here's a book on it to help you with your ABC's
> 
> Epstein’s most recent book, _The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government_, seeks to explain and defend his theory of constitutional understanding.
> 
> see why we say slow??
Click to expand...

They believed in a very, very tiny government because they had a very, very tiny economy


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> The winning revolutionists then created a government so limited in power that it didn't work.



too stupid. Most would say our modern govt has huge power and does not work!! Do you get the logic??

Articles worked well which is why most supported it. It won the Revolution and secured a
peace treaty with land all the way to Mississipi, state govts were established, voting franchise greatly  extended, freguent elections, separation of church and state, beginning of abilition of slavery in northern states, expansion of education and literacy, establishment of State Bills of Rights, patterns of expansion with NW Ordinances established, ( all westen land to Fed was to be divideded and sold for $1 per acre, self rule, and admission to union when population was 60,000, freedom of worship, trial by jury, no slavery, trade opened with Europe and Asia, loans secured to US from foreign powers.

Additionally, many did not even attend Constitutional convention like Jefferson Adams Henry, and only 33 of 59 who did attend signed it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> . Another group labeled the framers then created a new government with infinitely more power and we still use that government today.




the new govt was 1% the size of today's liberal govt on an inflation adjusted per capita basis and had no welfare entitlements nor did it envisage any. The new govt was designed to make liberalism illegal by  allowing only a few enumerated powers.

Liberalism is far more at home in Cuba than the USA. Now you can see why our liberals spied for Stalin's very very big liberal govt and why they elected Obama a guy with 3 communist parents who voted to left of Benie Sanders!


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The winning revolutionists then created a government so limited in power that it didn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid. Most would say our modern govt has huge power and does not work!! Do you get the logic??
> 
> Articles worked well which is why most supported it. It won the Revolution...
Click to expand...

really? The United States existed before the articles. July 1776 - November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the *Articles of Confederation* by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> many did not even attend Constitutional convention like Jefferson Adams Henry, and only 33 of 59 who did attend signed it.


so what? and why?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> many did not even attend Constitutional convention like Jefferson Adams Henry, and only 33 of 59 who did attend signed it.
> 
> 
> 
> so what? and why?
Click to expand...


liberals like to pretend that Articles did not work and there was universal agreement about it. Only on 3rd try did enough attend the Convention to begin deliberations and not all voted for new Constitution because they were very very afraid of creating a monster liberal govt. Washington's attendance was critical so they lied to him to get him there.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The winning revolutionists then created a government so limited in power that it didn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid. Most would say our modern govt has huge power and does not work!! Do you get the logic??
> 
> Articles worked well which is why most supported it. It won the Revolution...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? The United States existed before the articles. July 1776 - November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the *Articles of Confederation* by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781
Click to expand...


yes and they merely codified the existing order


----------



## norwegen

rightwinger said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> . The American revolutionists were  liberals, the conservatives opposed to the revolution,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean classical liberals for very very tiny govt, the opposite of modern liberals who love bigger and bigger govt. This is why they spied for Hitler and Stalin..
> 
> Here's a book on it to help you with your ABC's
> 
> Epstein’s most recent book, _The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government_, seeks to explain and defend his theory of constitutional understanding.
> 
> see why we say slow??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They believed in a very, very tiny government because they had a very, very tiny economy
Click to expand...

Another simplistic, liberal, _i.e._, progressive, assumption.  Americans were quite well off and happy.  They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.

The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century.  The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east.  It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists.  American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.).  The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.

The Americans were already allying with other European powers.  They were by no means insignificant.

They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
Click to expand...


What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The winning revolutionists then created a government so limited in power that it didn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid. Most would say our modern govt has huge power and does not work!! Do you get the logic??
> 
> Articles worked well which is why most supported it. It won the Revolution...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? The United States existed before the articles. July 1776 - November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the *Articles of Confederation* by all thirteen states did not occur until March 1, 1781
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes and they merely codified the existing order
Click to expand...

your people lost the war. they were criminals and traitors that got pardons


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's the Bill of Right's that gives form to the Constitution, which is somewhat vague in it's application.   Nothing is self evident, everything has to be codified to avoid  confusion and conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are so confused it is incredible. You are looking for a black and white strict constructionist view of life that just doesn't exist. The Bill of Rights was not included in the final drafts. Most of the framers thought righst were self evident and that codifying some would be construed by people like you to think those not codified were not or guaranteed or protected . there is more to the story, but Dante didn't sign up to be your private history teacher
Click to expand...


Not my private history teacher?  I thank God for that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

rightwinger said:


> They believed in a very, very tiny government because they had a very, very tiny economy



goof liberal liar!! as if someone said the govt would expand and contract with size of economy.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...

actually not.  Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.

The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights.  Learn your history before posting


----------



## norwegen

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is not independent of the Declaration of Independence.


----------



## Liminal

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).
> 
> Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please go back to the rubber room
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.
Click to expand...


History is fun when you mix and match.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> your people lost the war. they were criminals and traitors that got pardons



and your point is??


----------



## norwegen

Liminal said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).
> 
> Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please go back to the rubber room
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History is fun when you mix and match.
Click to expand...

And yet, liberals are perpetually bitter.


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually not.  Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.
> 
> The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights.  Learn your history before posting
Click to expand...


Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.


----------



## Dante

norwegen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> . The American revolutionists were  liberals, the conservatives opposed to the revolution,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean classical liberals for very very tiny govt, the opposite of modern liberals who love bigger and bigger govt. This is why they spied for Hitler and Stalin..
> 
> Here's a book on it to help you with your ABC's
> 
> Epstein’s most recent book, _The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government_, seeks to explain and defend his theory of constitutional understanding.
> 
> see why we say slow??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They believed in a very, very tiny government because they had a very, very tiny economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another simplistic, liberal, _i.e._, progressive, assumption.  Americans were quite well off and happy.  They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.
> 
> The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century.  The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east.  It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists.  American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.).  The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.
> 
> The Americans were already allying with other European powers.  They were by no means insignificant.
> 
> They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.
Click to expand...

a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality 

btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary



they thought people had rights, but  that it might be be foolish to empower govt to protect those since it would probably subvert that empowerment and use it to take away rights.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually not.  Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.
> 
> The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights.  Learn your history before posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.
Click to expand...

the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

Dante's reply: actually not.

concise, to the point


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they thought people had rights, but  that it might be be foolish to empower govt to protect those since it would probably subvert that empowerment and use it to take away rights.
Click to expand...


and others thought the most important at that time needed to be enumerated, and still others demanded if so, a ninth amendment


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> There were arguments over how big a government should be



yes and the issue was tiny or very tiny!!


Jefferson or Obama:
"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> 
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually not.  Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.
> 
> The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights.  Learn your history before posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Dante's reply: actually not.
> 
> concise, to the point
Click to expand...


Then why do you make reference to a line from the Declaration in your anecdotes about the Constitution?


----------



## Dante

norwegen said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).
> 
> Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please go back to the rubber room
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History is fun when you mix and match.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, liberals are perpetually bitter.
Click to expand...

oh yeah, bitter that Obama beat the crap out of the GOP even though they threw everything at him in order to make him a one-termer


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they thought people had rights, but  that it might be be foolish to empower govt to protect those since it would probably subvert that empowerment and use it to take away rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and others thought the most important at that time needed to be enumerated, and still others demanded if so, a ninth amendment
Click to expand...


yes dear people had many different thoughts and then they created a very very tiny government Which Jefferson confirmed 10000% in 1800.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually not.  Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.
> 
> The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights.  Learn your history before posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Dante's reply: actually not.
> 
> concise, to the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why do you make reference to a line from the Declaration in your anecdotes about the Constitution?
Click to expand...

perspective. the USC was not written in a vacuum. Most informed people know about the battles over a bill of rights. Excuse me for mistaking you for an informed dingbat. Your just a plain old commoner of a dingbat


----------



## norwegen

Dante said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> . The American revolutionists were  liberals, the conservatives opposed to the revolution,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean classical liberals for very very tiny govt, the opposite of modern liberals who love bigger and bigger govt. This is why they spied for Hitler and Stalin..
> 
> Here's a book on it to help you with your ABC's
> 
> Epstein’s most recent book, _The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government_, seeks to explain and defend his theory of constitutional understanding.
> 
> see why we say slow??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They believed in a very, very tiny government because they had a very, very tiny economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another simplistic, liberal, _i.e._, progressive, assumption.  Americans were quite well off and happy.  They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.
> 
> The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century.  The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east.  It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists.  American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.).  The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.
> 
> The Americans were already allying with other European powers.  They were by no means insignificant.
> 
> They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality
> 
> btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond
Click to expand...

Did you mean to address rightwinger with this tiny government bidness?

I know the Constitution was a shift to the left of the Articles of Confederation, though a document nonetheless rooted in conservative, natural law tradition.


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were arguments over how big a government should be
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes and the issue was tiny or very tiny!!
> 
> 
> Jefferson or Obama:
> "The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."
Click to expand...

go back to the rubber room


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> Obama beat the crap out of the GOP



which is why he lost the Congress in the last two mid terms and most don't like his Obamacommie care.


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they thought people had rights, but  that it might be be foolish to empower govt to protect those since it would probably subvert that empowerment and use it to take away rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and others thought the most important at that time needed to be enumerated, and still others demanded if so, a ninth amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes dear people had many different thoughts and then they created a very very tiny government Which Jefferson confirmed 10000% in 1800.
Click to expand...

The *Louisiana Purchase* refers to the 530,000,000 acres of territory in North America that the United States *purchased* from France in 1803 for US $15 million.


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama beat the crap out of the GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which is why he lost the Congress in the last two mid terms and most don't like his Obamacommie care.
Click to expand...

Reagan?   give it a rest/ go back to the rubber room


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> The *Louisiana Purchase* refers to the 530,000,000 acres of territory in North America that the United States *purchased* from France in 1803 for US $15 million.



dear, a bigger country does not mean a bigger govt. In fact Jefferson wanted land so all could be very independent farmers and not stuck in cities where they could be organized by govt.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama beat the crap out of the GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which is why he lost the Congress in the last two mid terms and most don't like his Obamacommie care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan?   give it a rest/ go back to the rubber room
Click to expand...


which is why Obama lost the Congress in the last two mid terms and most don't like his signature Obamacommie care which he lied through his teeth to pass.


----------



## Dante

norwegen said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> . The American revolutionists were  liberals, the conservatives opposed to the revolution,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean classical liberals for very very tiny govt, the opposite of modern liberals who love bigger and bigger govt. This is why they spied for Hitler and Stalin..
> 
> Here's a book on it to help you with your ABC's
> 
> Epstein’s most recent book, _The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government_, seeks to explain and defend his theory of constitutional understanding.
> 
> see why we say slow??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They believed in a very, very tiny government because they had a very, very tiny economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another simplistic, liberal, _i.e._, progressive, assumption.  Americans were quite well off and happy.  They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.
> 
> The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century.  The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east.  It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists.  American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.).  The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.
> 
> The Americans were already allying with other European powers.  They were by no means insignificant.
> 
> They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality
> 
> btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you mean to address rightwinger with this tiny government bidness?
> 
> I know the Constitution was a shift to the left of the Articles of Confederation, though a document nonetheless rooted in conservative, natural law tradition.
Click to expand...

nope. rw, is wrong on the colonial economy

Conservative, natural law tradition is a liberal tradition born out of the liberalism of the Enlightenment. 

In the end we are all liberal.


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama beat the crap out of the GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which is why he lost the Congress in the last two mid terms and most don't like his Obamacommie care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan?   give it a rest/ go back to the rubber room
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which is why Obama lost the Congress in the last two mid terms and most don't like his signature Obamacommie care which he lied through his teeth to pass.
Click to expand...


The democratic Congress was going to pass a healthcare bill. No lies were needed silly


----------



## norwegen

Dante said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean classical liberals for very very tiny govt, the opposite of modern liberals who love bigger and bigger govt. This is why they spied for Hitler and Stalin..
> 
> Here's a book on it to help you with your ABC's
> 
> Epstein’s most recent book, _The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government_, seeks to explain and defend his theory of constitutional understanding.
> 
> see why we say slow??
> 
> 
> 
> They believed in a very, very tiny government because they had a very, very tiny economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another simplistic, liberal, _i.e._, progressive, assumption.  Americans were quite well off and happy.  They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.
> 
> The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century.  The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east.  It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists.  American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.).  The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.
> 
> The Americans were already allying with other European powers.  They were by no means insignificant.
> 
> They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality
> 
> btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you mean to address rightwinger with this tiny government bidness?
> 
> I know the Constitution was a shift to the left of the Articles of Confederation, though a document nonetheless rooted in conservative, natural law tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope. rw, is wrong on the colonial economy
> 
> Conservative, natural law tradition is a liberal tradition born out of the liberalism of the Enlightenment.
> 
> In the end we are all liberal.
Click to expand...

If your end is liberal, you will always have a comfy place to sit.


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *Louisiana Purchase* refers to the 530,000,000 acres of territory in North America that the United States *purchased* from France in 1803 for US $15 million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, a bigger country does not mean a bigger govt. In fact Jefferson wanted land so all could be very independent farmers and not stuck in cities where they could be organized by govt.
Click to expand...

he wanted votes for an agrarian society and for slavery as an institution. If you believe his actions and the amount of money he spent did not violate his principles, you don't know diddly squat about Early american history


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean classical liberals for very very tiny govt, the opposite of modern liberals who love bigger and bigger govt. This is why they spied for Hitler and Stalin..
> 
> Here's a book on it to help you with your ABC's
> 
> Epstein’s most recent book, _The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government_, seeks to explain and defend his theory of constitutional understanding.
> 
> see why we say slow??
> 
> 
> 
> They believed in a very, very tiny government because they had a very, very tiny economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another simplistic, liberal, _i.e._, progressive, assumption.  Americans were quite well off and happy.  They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.
> 
> The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century.  The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east.  It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists.  American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.).  The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.
> 
> The Americans were already allying with other European powers.  They were by no means insignificant.
> 
> They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality
> 
> btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you mean to address rightwinger with this tiny government bidness?
> 
> I know the Constitution was a shift to the left of the Articles of Confederation, though a document nonetheless rooted in conservative, natural law tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope. rw, is wrong on the colonial economy
> 
> Conservative, natural law tradition is a liberal tradition born out of the liberalism of the Enlightenment.
> 
> In the end we are all liberal.
Click to expand...


modern liberals oppose natural law and natural rights because they want to be free to impose their  own laws on human kind. HItler Stalin Mao and to a lesser extent FDR and Obama are good examples.


----------



## Dante

norwegen said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They believed in a very, very tiny government because they had a very, very tiny economy
> 
> 
> 
> Another simplistic, liberal, _i.e._, progressive, assumption.  Americans were quite well off and happy.  They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.
> 
> The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century.  The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east.  It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists.  American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.).  The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.
> 
> The Americans were already allying with other European powers.  They were by no means insignificant.
> 
> They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality
> 
> btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you mean to address rightwinger with this tiny government bidness?
> 
> I know the Constitution was a shift to the left of the Articles of Confederation, though a document nonetheless rooted in conservative, natural law tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope. rw, is wrong on the colonial economy
> 
> Conservative, natural law tradition is a liberal tradition born out of the liberalism of the Enlightenment.
> 
> In the end we are all liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your end is liberal, you will always have a comfy place to sit.
Click to expand...

Our federalist republic grew out of the liberal tradition.


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They believed in a very, very tiny government because they had a very, very tiny economy
> 
> 
> 
> Another simplistic, liberal, _i.e._, progressive, assumption.  Americans were quite well off and happy.  They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.
> 
> The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century.  The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east.  It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists.  American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.).  The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.
> 
> The Americans were already allying with other European powers.  They were by no means insignificant.
> 
> They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality
> 
> btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you mean to address rightwinger with this tiny government bidness?
> 
> I know the Constitution was a shift to the left of the Articles of Confederation, though a document nonetheless rooted in conservative, natural law tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope. rw, is wrong on the colonial economy
> 
> Conservative, natural law tradition is a liberal tradition born out of the liberalism of the Enlightenment.
> 
> In the end we are all liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> modern liberals oppose natural law and natural rights because...
Click to expand...

they believe in the science of today


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> he wanted votes for an agrarian society



agreed because farmers  were very very independent people who could not easily be corrupted by liberal government


----------



## Darkwind

Synthaholic said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide,
> 
> 
> 
> To Republicans?  Apparently.
> 
> Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.
Click to expand...

What?

Their duty is to give the President anything he or she wants?

What article is that under?


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> he wanted votes for an agrarian society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> agreed because farmers  were very very independent people who could not easily be corrupted by liberal government
Click to expand...

nope. because Jefferson was nuts. 

Jefferson had this mental quirk that often embarrassed his friends and proponents: He believed in a mythical time when Saxons lived free and liberty reigned and then governments entered the picture and destroyed Eden. 

If Jefferson had his way the USA would never have been ready for the coming Industrial Revolution. The USA would have been an agricultural backwater like Russia


----------



## Dante

Darkwind said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide,
> 
> 
> 
> To Republicans?  Apparently.
> 
> Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What?
> 
> Their duty is to give the President anything he or she wants?
> 
> What article is that under?
Click to expand...

straw man alert!


----------



## MaryL

After President Obama pulls unilateral BS:  legalizing gay marriage,  legalizing Illegal alien amnesty,   the health care fiasco,  you name it. I have to wonder who he represents. The Constitution? Bahh humbug.


----------



## Dante

MaryL said:


> After President Obama pulls unilateral BS:  legalizing gay marriage,  legalizing Illegal alien amnesty,   the health care fiasco,  you name it. I have to wonder who he represents. The Constitution? Bahh humbug.


babbling again Mary?


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> 
> 
> actually not.  Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.
> 
> The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights.  Learn your history before posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Dante's reply: actually not.
> 
> concise, to the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why do you make reference to a line from the Declaration in your anecdotes about the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perspective. the USC was not written in a vacuum. Most informed people know about the battles over a bill of rights. Excuse me for mistaking you for an informed dingbat. Your just a plain old commoner of a dingbat
Click to expand...


Generally when people have to include personal remarks in every post it's because they never had any real argument to start with.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually not.  Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.
> 
> The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights.  Learn your history before posting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Dante's reply: actually not.
> 
> concise, to the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why do you make reference to a line from the Declaration in your anecdotes about the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perspective. the USC was not written in a vacuum. Most informed people know about the battles over a bill of rights. Excuse me for mistaking you for an informed dingbat. Your just a plain old commoner of a dingbat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally when people have to include personal remarks in every post it's because they never had any real argument to start with.
Click to expand...

really? Funny, Dante does it because he can


----------



## Dad2three

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ In most cases, especially as of late, they make the rules as they go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liberals want a loose reading of the Constitution so it can mean anything they want. While Republicans want a strict reading since they share the basic principles of our Founders about govt being the source of evil in human history.
> 
> Now even you can understand why our liberals spied for Stalin and Hitler and elected Obama?
Click to expand...




*President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.*


*Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems,* ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.


Bush Claims He Has Authority To Disobey More Than 750 Laws...


----------



## Dad2three

MaryL said:


> After President Obama pulls unilateral BS:  legalizing gay marriage,  legalizing Illegal alien amnesty,   the health care fiasco,  you name it. I have to wonder who he represents. The Constitution? Bahh humbug.






President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.


Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.


Bush Claims He Has Authority To Disobey More Than 750 Laws...


----------



## Dad2three

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they thought people had rights, but  that it might be be foolish to empower govt to protect those since it would probably subvert that empowerment and use it to take away rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and others thought the most important at that time needed to be enumerated, and still others demanded if so, a ninth amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes dear people had many different thoughts and then they created a very very tiny government Which Jefferson confirmed 10000% in 1800.
Click to expand...


You mean AS Jefferson GREATLY expanded federal power AND did the Louisiana purchase



Shortly thereafter, Jefferson wrote to Kentucky's governor, James Garrard, *to inform him of Monroe's appointment and to assure him that Monroe was empowered to enter into "arrangements that may effectually secure our rights & interest in the Mississippi, and in the country eastward of that."*

As Jefferson noted in that letter, Monroe's charge was to obtain land east of the Mississippi. Monroe's instructions, drawn up by Madison and approved by Jefferson, allocated up to $10 million for the purchase of New Orleans and all or part of the Floridas

Seizing on what Jefferson later called "a fugitive occurrence," Monroe and Livingston immediately entered into negotiations and on April 30 reached an agreement that exceeded their authority - the purchase of the Louisiana territory, including New Orleans, for $15 million. *The acquisition of approximately 827,000 square miles would double the size of the United States.*


*Exact boundaries would have to be negotiated with Spain and England and so would not be set for several years, and Jefferson's Cabinet members argued that the constitutional amendment he proposed was not necessary. As time for ratification of the purchase treaty grew short, Jefferson accepted his Cabinet's counsel and rationalized: "It is the case of a guardian, investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory; and saying to him when of age, I did this for your good."*

*The Louisiana Purchase Thomas Jefferson s Monticello






*


----------



## Dad2three

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *Louisiana Purchase* refers to the 530,000,000 acres of territory in North America that the United States *purchased* from France in 1803 for US $15 million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, a bigger country does not mean a bigger govt. In fact Jefferson wanted land so all could be very independent farmers and not stuck in cities where they could be organized by govt.
Click to expand...



What were the effects of Jefferson's decision to go against his own philosophy concerning a strict interpretation of the Constitution? It can be argued that his taking liberties with the Constitution in the name of need and expediency *would lead to future Presidents feeling justified with a continual increase in the elasticity of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. *Jefferson should rightly be remembered for the great deed of purchasing this enormous tract of land. But one wonders if he might regret the means in which he earned this fame.

Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase

*
"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." Thomas Jefferson*


----------



## Dante




----------



## Dad2three

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> many did not even attend Constitutional convention like Jefferson Adams Henry, and only 33 of 59 who did attend signed it.
> 
> 
> 
> so what? and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> liberals like to pretend that Articles did not work and there was universal agreement about it. Only on 3rd try did enough attend the Convention to begin deliberations and not all voted for new Constitution because they were very very afraid of creating a monster liberal govt. Washington's attendance was critical so they lied to him to get him there.
Click to expand...



Weird, yet the states STILL voted for the STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T over the  weak federal Gov't,. strong states rights Articles? lol

ARTICLES DID WORK? lol


----------



## Dad2three

norwegen said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what about the Bill of Rights? Is that a part of the Constitution? What about taxation? Is that not mentioned in the Constitution? Democracy? How so? Democracy means that the people rule, have a voice, and the government works for the benefit of the citizenry. Does it not? Please explain. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is not independent of the Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...


Sure it is, one was aimed at the head of England, and one, 15 years later gave US a FRAMEWORK for our laws!


----------



## Dad2three

norwegen said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> . The American revolutionists were  liberals, the conservatives opposed to the revolution,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean classical liberals for very very tiny govt, the opposite of modern liberals who love bigger and bigger govt. This is why they spied for Hitler and Stalin..
> 
> Here's a book on it to help you with your ABC's
> 
> Epstein’s most recent book, _The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government_, seeks to explain and defend his theory of constitutional understanding.
> 
> see why we say slow??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They believed in a very, very tiny government because they had a very, very tiny economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another simplistic, liberal, _i.e._, progressive, assumption.  Americans were quite well off and happy.  They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.
> 
> The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century.  The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east.  It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists.  American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.).  The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.
> 
> The Americans were already allying with other European powers.  They were by no means insignificant.
> 
> They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.
Click to expand...



*"They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life."*

lol

*If there’s one thing that we know about the Founding Fathers,  it’s that they didn’t want a weak national government. *

But there _was_ a group who wanted a weak national government. They were called the anti-Federalists, and they were appalled by the proposed Constitution.  These believers in  small-government fought tooth-and-nail against adoption of the Constitution. They lost.

If the supporters of the Constitution had wanted a government “small enough to drown in a bathtub” (in the words of Grover Norquist), they already had one before the Constitution was even conceived.  The Articles of Confederation gave Congress few powers and made it procedurally almost impossible to exercise even those.  Norquist would have been thrilled: there was no tax power at all.

The whole point of the Constitution was to make the federal government much stronger than it had been.  The Constitutional Convention left no doubt on that score.  It explained its goals at the same time it made the Constitution public. Here are some key statements:

The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of *levying money and regulating commerce*, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be* fully and effectually* vested in the general government of the Union . . .

It is obviously impractical in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. . .

In all our deliberation on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us *the greatest interest of every true American,* *the consolidation of our Union* . . .


Did the Founding Fathers Believe in a Strong Federal Government You Betcha. Legal Planet


*If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*

Estate tax and the founding fathers You can t take it with you The Economist


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.
> 
> 
> 
> the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Dante's reply: actually not.
> 
> concise, to the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why do you make reference to a line from the Declaration in your anecdotes about the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perspective. the USC was not written in a vacuum. Most informed people know about the battles over a bill of rights. Excuse me for mistaking you for an informed dingbat. Your just a plain old commoner of a dingbat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally when people have to include personal remarks in every post it's because they never had any real argument to start with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? Funny, Dante does it because he can
Click to expand...


Really?  I think Dante does it because he's still confused, quoting the Declaration in reference to the Constitution.


----------



## Darkwind

Dante said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide,
> 
> 
> 
> To Republicans?  Apparently.
> 
> Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What?
> 
> Their duty is to give the President anything he or she wants?
> 
> What article is that under?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> straw man alert!
Click to expand...

Straw man?  LOL

Tell Me, where does it say that Congress is obligated to do the President's bidding.....I won't wait up.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Dante's reply: actually not.
> 
> concise, to the point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you make reference to a line from the Declaration in your anecdotes about the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> perspective. the USC was not written in a vacuum. Most informed people know about the battles over a bill of rights. Excuse me for mistaking you for an informed dingbat. Your just a plain old commoner of a dingbat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Generally when people have to include personal remarks in every post it's because they never had any real argument to start with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? Funny, Dante does it because he can
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  I think Dante does it because he's still confused, quoting the Declaration in reference to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

stop being and idiot. Being a moron alone is sufficient


----------



## Dante

Darkwind said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide,
> 
> 
> 
> To Republicans?  Apparently.
> 
> Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What?
> 
> Their duty is to give the President anything he or she wants?
> 
> What article is that under?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> straw man alert!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man?  LOL
> 
> Tell Me, where does it say that Congress is obligated to do the President's bidding.....I won't wait up.
Click to expand...

No one wrote: "Their duty is to give the President anything he or she wants?" except you. You make a straw man and then you shoot it down.

see?


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which specific rights are guaranteed in the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights?
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually not.  Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.
> 
> The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights.  Learn your history before posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.
Click to expand...

...  
the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

Dante's reply: actually not.

concise, to the point


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check and get back to you before I answer. Thanks. I want to make sure that I'm right first.
> 
> 
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually not.  Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.
> 
> The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights.  Learn your history before posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Dante's reply: actually not.
> 
> concise, to the point
Click to expand...


Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ?  Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually not.  Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.
> 
> The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights.  Learn your history before posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Dante's reply: actually not.
> 
> concise, to the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ?  Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?
Click to expand...

Parading your ignorance and idiocy around in public will only expose you further for the fool you are.

Saying many of the framers and ratifiers thought there was no need for a bill of rights, because they thought rights were self evident -- presupposes a Constitution without a Bill of Rights. So --  *drum roll please ......................
\
......................


/..............*

? = a cymbal  _*.......... / *_ There would be no rights enumerated IN the Constitution. Your exposed. Now run along little girlyman/boy


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> 
> 
> actually not.  Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.
> 
> The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights.  Learn your history before posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Dante's reply: actually not.
> 
> concise, to the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ?  Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parading your ignorance and idiocy around in public will only expose you further for the fool you are.
> 
> Saying many of the framers and ratifiers thought there was no need for a bill of rights, because they thought rights were self evident -- presupposes a Constitution without a Bill of Rights. So --  *drum roll please ......................
> \
> ......................
> 
> 
> /..............*
> 
> ? = a cymbal  _*.......... / *_ There would be no rights enumerated IN the Constitution. Your exposed. Now run along little girlyman/boy
Click to expand...


Your constant name calling does nothing to disguise your lack of substance.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually not.  Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.
> 
> The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights.  Learn your history before posting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Dante's reply: actually not.
> 
> concise, to the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ?  Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parading your ignorance and idiocy around in public will only expose you further for the fool you are.
> 
> Saying many of the framers and ratifiers thought there was no need for a bill of rights, because they thought rights were self evident -- presupposes a Constitution without a Bill of Rights. So --  *drum roll please ......................
> \
> ......................
> 
> 
> /..............*
> 
> ? = a cymbal  _*.......... / *_ There would be no rights enumerated IN the Constitution. Your exposed. Now run along little girlyman/boy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your constant name calling does nothing to disguise your lack of substance.
Click to expand...

Lack of substance?  Try and challenge Dante in the Bull Ring -- you'd get your pathetic little butt handed to you on a roll with mustard


----------



## Liminal

Dante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Dante's reply: actually not.
> 
> concise, to the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ?  Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parading your ignorance and idiocy around in public will only expose you further for the fool you are.
> 
> Saying many of the framers and ratifiers thought there was no need for a bill of rights, because they thought rights were self evident -- presupposes a Constitution without a Bill of Rights. So --  *drum roll please ......................
> \
> ......................
> 
> 
> /..............*
> 
> ? = a cymbal  _*.......... / *_ There would be no rights enumerated IN the Constitution. Your exposed. Now run along little girlyman/boy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your constant name calling does nothing to disguise your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lack of substance?  Try and challenge Dante in the Bull Ring -- you'd get your pathetic little butt handed to you on a roll with mustard
Click to expand...


You have yet to demonstrate your amazing debate skills.


----------



## Dante

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Dante's reply: actually not.
> 
> concise, to the point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ?  Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parading your ignorance and idiocy around in public will only expose you further for the fool you are.
> 
> Saying many of the framers and ratifiers thought there was no need for a bill of rights, because they thought rights were self evident -- presupposes a Constitution without a Bill of Rights. So --  *drum roll please ......................
> \
> ......................
> 
> 
> /..............*
> 
> ? = a cymbal  _*.......... / *_ There would be no rights enumerated IN the Constitution. Your exposed. Now run along little girlyman/boy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your constant name calling does nothing to disguise your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lack of substance?  Try and challenge Dante in the Bull Ring -- you'd get your pathetic little butt handed to you on a roll with mustard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to demonstrate your amazing debate skills.
Click to expand...

Bull Ring


----------



## norwegen

Liminal said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The self evident rights?    Many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually not.  Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.
> 
> The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights.  Learn your history before posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Dante's reply: actually not.
> 
> concise, to the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ?  Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?
Click to expand...

Dante's a bleeding-heart, revisionist, baby-killing, useful-idiot, brown-shirt, Trotskyite, man-hating, granola-munching, brainless liberal who never knows what he's talking about, but in this case, he knows what he's talking about.

The Constitution is not independent of the Declaration of Independence.  It was not created in a vacuum.  The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the war, the building of a uniquely American society in all the decades previous: in this revolution, people realized once for all the reality of the natural law and the rights therein.  Common knowledge among Americans was that certain unalienable rights were self-evident.  This view was so shared among the people that nary a comprehensive list of these rights was necessary.


----------



## Dante

norwegen said:


> Dante's a bleeding-heart, revisionist, baby-killing, useful-idiot, brown-shirt, Trotskyite, man-hating, granola-munching, brainless liberal...


Dante doesn't like granola


----------



## Liminal

norwegen said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> What self evident rights are those?  There are no references to self evident anything in the US Constitution.   I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> 
> 
> actually not.  Reading and comprehension deficit runs rampant online. you're excused for it.
> 
> The reasons many of the framers and ratifiers didn't think a bill of rights was needed was they thought they all agreed on what were self evident rights.  Learn your history before posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually not what?  Perhaps you could be a little less vague and cryptic in your answers as you attempt to avoid the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> the conclusion of your statement: I think you may be confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> Dante's reply: actually not.
> 
> concise, to the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever figure out which rights in the Constitution are "self evident" ?  Or are you still stuck on the Declaration of Independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dante's a bleeding-heart, revisionist, baby-killing, useful-idiot, brown-shirt, Trotskyite, man-hating, granola-munching, brainless liberal who never knows what he's talking about, but in this case, he knows what he's talking about.
> 
> The Constitution is not independent of the Declaration of Independence.  It was not created in a vacuum.  The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the war, the building of a uniquely American society in all the decades previous: in this revolution, people realized once for all the reality of the natural law and the rights therein.  Common knowledge among Americans was that certain unalienable rights were self-evident.  This view was so shared among the people that nary a comprehensive list of these rights was necessary.
Click to expand...


Common knowledge doesn't codify law.


----------



## Dante

norwegen the weenie 





norwegen said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> . The American revolutionists were  liberals, the conservatives opposed to the revolution,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean classical liberals for very very tiny govt, the opposite of modern liberals who love bigger and bigger govt. This is why they spied for Hitler and Stalin..
> 
> Here's a book on it to help you with your ABC's
> 
> Epstein’s most recent book, _The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government_, seeks to explain and defend his theory of constitutional understanding.
> 
> see why we say slow??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They believed in a very, very tiny government because they had a very, very tiny economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another simplistic, liberal, _i.e._, progressive, assumption.  Americans were quite well off and happy.  They were one of the most properous people of the eighteenth century, having been perhaps the key players in turning England's strugggling, limited trade relations with northern Europe into a sophisticated trans-oceanic commercial network that transformed the tiny, insular country of 1600 into the world's dominant power by 1700.
> 
> The Americans were perhaps also the most liberated people of the eighteenth century.  The Crown retained some authority in the colonial courts and legislatures, in America's international relations, in the expanses of wilderness to the west and a few settled territories in the east.  It established the colonial post office, regulated naturalization, and retained a few other powers here and there, such as the power to collect fees, dues, and rents, but the great majority of the organs of government were held by the colonists.  American agencies maintained law and order, administered justice, and in general regulated everyday life (personal conduct, the worship of God, taxation, the production and distribution of wealth, etc.).  The Americans condemned the prerogative power of the crown.
> 
> The Americans were already allying with other European powers.  They were by no means insignificant.
> 
> They believed in a "very, very tiny government" not because they had a "very, very tiny economy," which is a laughable assumption, but becasue they wanted to preserve their society and way of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a very tiny government? nope. It wasn't about the actual size. There were arguments over how big a government should be and it's role. Stop putting forth a monolithic view that is more myth than reality
> 
> btw, Colonial Economy A Historical Perspective on the American Economy Economy 1991 American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you mean to address rightwinger with this tiny government bidness?
> 
> I know the Constitution was a shift to the left of the Articles of Confederation, though a document nonetheless rooted in conservative, natural law tradition.
Click to expand...

actually, it is rooted in the natural law tradition which is a liberal and NOT a conservative tradition


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> actually, it is rooted in the natural law tradition which is a liberal and NOT a conservative tradition




100% stupid and liberal !! natural law is the conservative immutable law that exists in nature while liberal law is the new creative progressive law made up by HItler Stalin Mao and Obama manifested by powerful new central govt with powerful new ideas.

Do you understand now?


----------



## regent

When the scientists tied the knot on the solar system with natural laws, that led to the question, is their a natural law for  people, for governments, and the Age of Enlightenment may have had its first birth. The Declaration of Independence reeks of that new age, and a new nation was born using the Declaration's theme song. Incidentally Jefferson made  the Declaration into a logical  syllogism--and its real purpose was propaganda.


----------



## Templicon

Now it is merely an illusion. The constitution began to cease to exist under Dictator Lincoln. In 2002 it was pretty much relegated to the "fiction" section. But it was a gradual process that installed the modern US Police State in the shadow dictatorship of the president.

All it will take is the proper set of "national emergency" events to bring that shadow US Dictatorship to the light. Everything is perfectly situated now for the absolute removal of the US constitution made official for that of the world government constitution of world union.


----------



## Dante

norwegen said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> agree with one caveat:
> 
> Madison did not become an anti-Federalist on this issue. We all can confuse the Federalist
> republicans with the later Federalist Party
> 
> Dante being one huge anti-anti-Federalist  thanks gawd for the anti-Federalists too. Without their input and arguments we'd never have made it this far
> 
> 
> 
> Madison underwent  a transformation after the Federalist Papers, allying with the Republicans in 1792 (or thereabouts).  Granted, it was after the new government was created, but he may have been leaning more toward George Mason at the Philadelphia Convention than anyone else (as everyone knows (*and by everyone, of course, I mean me*)).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *in bold: *  so very Dante!
> 
> Madison's views more than Hamilton's views were being defended in the Federalist (papers). Madison won more battles (am I mistaken?) during the convention than Hamilton did.
> 
> What Madison later did was become a Democratic-Republican (not to be confused with republican Republican). If I am not mistaken, both Democrat and Republican parties today sprung out of the Democratic-Republican party.
> 
> It is Dante's opinion that Madison remained a Federalist republican to his dying day. This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).
> 
> Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop playing games. Want to call it the Jefferson party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were Republicans.  Libertarians, we might even say.  They created a radical new government, a limited, innocuous government seated in a new city, set apart from society not to shape it but rather to preserve it.
Click to expand...


The Democratic-Republican party did NOT create the USA


----------



## Dante

idiot EdwardBaiamonte norwegen


EdwardBaiamonte said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).
> 
> Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.
Click to expand...

Neither the Republican party of today nor the Democratic party of today have any true roots traced back to the creation of the USA


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is in line with the arsewipes at the Federalist Society who claim both Hamilton and Madison
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madison and Jefferson were blood brothers and both especially Jefferson hated Hamilton for his big govt ideas. Liberal versus conservative was the theme of the revolution and indeed the theme of human history.
Click to expand...

American liberal ideology and conservative ideology come out of the same thing: Liberalism

they are branches of the same tree

D'Oh!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> idiot EdwardBaiamonte norwegen
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).
> 
> Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither the Republican party of today nor the Democratic party of today have any true roots traced back to the creation of the USA
Click to expand...

you're obviously a total 100% liberal illiterate. The conflict between freedom and government was defined by Plato and Aristotle 2500 years ago and was carried forward by Cicero Jesus Bacon Locke Jefferson and Friedman. Jefferson and Madison started the Republican Party in 1793 to carry on the Aristotelian ideology of freedom from big liberal govt.

Welcome to your class in political history. What else would you like to now?


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> idiot EdwardBaiamonte norwegen
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one from the founding era was a Democratic-Republican.  That term was coined later by historians (by *gasp* progressive historians).
> 
> Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, presidents from the founding era, were Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, progressives need to rewrite or lie about history to make it seem as if Democrats were part of the founding. They were not and they have no sympathy with the Founding idea of freedom from liberal govt. They were best defined when they spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb , and elected Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither the Republican party of today nor the Democratic party of today have any true roots traced back to the creation of the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're obviously a total 100% liberal illiterate. The conflict between freedom and government was defined by Plato and Aristotle 2500 years ago and was carried forward by Cicero Jesus Bacon Locke Jefferson and Friedman. Jefferson and Madison started the Republican Party in 1793 to carry on the Aristotelian ideology of freedom from big liberal govt.
> 
> Welcome to your class in political history. What else would you like to now?
Click to expand...

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.

you speak much of Locke but are totally ignorant of people like Thomas Gordon


you're an idiot and a lightweight one at that

---


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte thinks he knows American history? From what, Wikipedia?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
> -



too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!: 
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."


----------



## RetiredGySgt

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is like the Bible.  They are both a warning which most of the time goes unheeded.
> 
> In government, no one believes in either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.
> 
> Do you understand now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
Click to expand...

3 branches? While Obama claims he can act without the Courts or the Congress and you people applaud him?


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?
> 
> See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
Click to expand...

Oh, now you want to attend Dante's school?

We don't accept remedial learners


----------



## Dante

RetiredGySgt said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is like the Bible.  They are both a warning which most of the time goes unheeded.
> 
> In government, no one believes in either.
> 
> 
> 
> I see it much the same as you. It's either ignored, or interpreted to suit a cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear that's idiotic of course. We live under the Constitution so have never become Nazi, communist etc etc.
> 
> Do you understand now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What parts of the Constitution to we live under? Seriously. The Bill of Rights maybe? Taxation maybe? You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! democracy, 3 branches of govt, enumerated powers, federalism!!
> 
> r
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3 branches? While Obama claims he can act without the Courts or the Congress and you people applaud him?
Click to expand...

Obama doesn't quite say that and the reason he remains popular and often has more support than you would think, is because of people like you -- you are Obama's secret weapon.

President  Obama has never claimed to be above the Courts, nor has he claimed he doesn't have to respect the powers of the Congress


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
> -



[/QUOTE]
To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!: 
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?
> 
> See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
> 
> 
> To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
> "The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."
Click to expand...

Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte 

hmm...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?
> 
> See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
> 
> 
> To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
> "The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte
> 
> hmm...
Click to expand...

too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
> "The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."
Click to expand...

LOL it's a given you have NOT read that book, otherwise...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
> "The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."
Click to expand...

LOL it's a given you have NOT read that book, otherwise...

[/QUOTE]

when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson,  with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party)  that Jefferson led?  See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.


----------



## Dante

poor, special Ed

please, allow us to offer a helping hand, and not a handout:
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> poor, special Ed
> 
> please, allow us to offer a helping hand, and not a handout:
> Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



for 5th time: when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.


----------



## Dante

truly amazing this Special Ed. It's a wonder he's _allowed to go online without supervision_. 

Oh it's Special Ed. so an explanation is in order: _supervision_ as in supervise, not as in super vision


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> truly amazing this Special Ed. It's a wonder he's _allowed to go online without supervision_.
> 
> Oh it's Special Ed. so an explanation is in order: _supervision_ as in supervise, not as in super vision


for 6th time: when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> truly amazing this Special Ed. It's a wonder he's _allowed to go online without supervision_.
> 
> Oh it's Special Ed. so an explanation is in order: _supervision_ as in supervise, not as in super vision
> 
> 
> 
> for 6th time: when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.
Click to expand...

Special Ed, the next time you want to mouth off about the _Jeffersonian Republicans_ (Democratic-Republicans) look up the name of John Beckley, then NEVER EVER interrupt the teacher when class is in session.
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Dante

Hey, Special Ed? Did you engine search (Google) Beckley yet?



on edit: a pity post:

American National Biography Online Beckley John James

look! You'll see Cunninghan's name again.  you know, the guy whose book you inferred you've read


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> truly amazing this Special Ed. It's a wonder he's _allowed to go online without supervision_.
> 
> Oh it's Special Ed. so an explanation is in order: _supervision_ as in supervise, not as in super vision
> 
> 
> 
> for 6th time: when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Special Ed, the next time you want to mouth off about the _Jeffersonian Republicans_ (Democratic-Republicans) look up the name of John Beckley, then NEVER EVER interrupt the teacher when class is in session.
> Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


for 7th time: when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sonny Clark said:


> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?



Hi Sonny Clark
It has become a matter of
* who can hire a legal team to present and WIN an argument in Court. So lawyers and judges have become the new Priests and Popes who decide what the laws mean and what is mandated for the people.

* who can lobby key issues in the MEDIA such as the LGBT issue and make policy by public pressure.

Notice: Annise Parker as Mayor of Houston did not invest any time or money into helping the BLACKS discriminated against in losing National History next door to city hall.  Parker received contributions from the LGBT community as far away as San Francisco, CA, so was paid to represent THOSE interests. And made unilateral changes to policies for the LGBT interests, but nothing to help the other minorities that have been waiting longer for justice. LGBT people were never considered 3/5 persons by law, and subject to ownership as property of banks, owners and mortgages.

But the Freed Slaves and their descendants that have been fighting to reverse the abuse of eminent domain to take away private property are still waiting for justice.  

Sonny, as long as the legal system is based on "statutes of limitations" and the clock doesn't start when you FIND a lawyer willing to help, then people like the community in Freedmen's Town LOSE RIGHTS for lack of legal defense.
These residents did not commit a crime. If they had and the charges were against them, they would have FREE legal defense paid for by the state. But because the seizure of land by govt is not considered a crime, they were required to SUE to protest the theft of the land by govt abusing taxpayer money and public authority.

This has been going on long before I volunteered there, but is a PRIME example of how the legal system has become the new kritocracy or rule by judges.  Because of the conflicts of interest and "govt immunity" this is why nobody challenges the system.


----------



## emilynghiem

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> truly amazing this Special Ed. It's a wonder he's _allowed to go online without supervision_.
> 
> Oh it's Special Ed. so an explanation is in order: _supervision_ as in supervise, not as in super vision
> 
> 
> 
> for 6th time: when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Special Ed, the next time you want to mouth off about the _Jeffersonian Republicans_ (Democratic-Republicans) look up the name of John Beckley, then NEVER EVER interrupt the teacher when class is in session.
> Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> for 7th time: when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.
Click to expand...


It's based on free choice to do what you want until you are forced by law, by govt, by a police officer, or a lawsuit and court order.

Govt is the God of liberals. So this is the divine authority that tells them right from wrong. That's why they want to control this God so they can get what they want, and other people (whose money and labor also goes into the public pool) don't count unless their beliefs agree. 

If their beliefs disagree, Liberals yell for separation of church and state to remove the offending policy. But if it's the other way, if opponents claim their beliefs are infringed upon, the Liberals say "too bad the collective good is more important than your free choice."
Which is not what they say when it comes to abortion, where free choice is more important. With health care, nope, no choice, except what the Liberals believe constitutes freedom. You can force businesses to pay for birth control and that counts as freedom. But you can't go invest your money into medical school programs instead of insurance, that's not a choice, and you'd get penalized for that!


----------



## Dante

Jefferson is also famous for having said:[2] 

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.​
Thomas DiLorenzo - RationalWiki


----------



## emilynghiem

Dante said:


> Jefferson is also famous for having said:[2]
> 
> Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.​
> Thomas DiLorenzo - RationalWiki



YES, Dante
And when the "institutions advance and make changes with the times"
it is by CONSENT.  Things change when someone's CONSENT is left out, and that group petitions for their interests or objections to be included in policy instead of excluded. It would not make sense to change things where it then violates or excludes other people's consent, because that wouldn't fix the problem but replace it with a different conflict that has to be worked out again. Why not resolve all objections and conflicts, as they arise, and get the laws written and passed by consent? Why try to push bills through KNOWING there are fundamental objections.  

When a law or contract is changed, it should be by the MUTUAL consent of the parties affected.
NOT by some elite faction that abuses the media to tell other people what the terms need to change to, and won't take into account their input, perspectives and effect on people being overruled.

Democratic process is not about one group bullying another "by majority rule"
as the parties would have it.

Jefferson did believe there was some element of "divine providence."
That sometimes public policy should not be left to public opinion,
but that God might bestow certain duties or wisdom on the leaders of govt
to make decisions that aren't to be swayed by "pandering to what is popular."

That is probably where the left and right part ways and distrust the other:
The Left distrusts when the Right believes that God ordains some things
and that govt is supposed to serve that higher truth, regardless of those whose beliefs disagree.
Likewise, the Right distrusts when the Left tries to dictate "the will of the people" and mandate public policy based on  what they deem to be politically correct agenda, even in conflict with half the nation.

both the left and right have a different way of justifying
when it is okay to override the dissent of the opposing views.
That is where they both claim the other is abusing govt to establish
private political agenda; whether this imposition on the public
is blamed on religious bias, or political secular beliefs.

It's still the same complaint. 

The REAL issue, Dante, is whether the group that is pushing their religious or political agenda
is one that you align with or not.

And Govt laws are not supposed to be determined by "which group's beliefs are more popular"
or have more members to push that through. 

Does it make a difference if the belief set being pushed onto the public
is religious, secular or political in its expression?

Isn't a belief by any other name still a belief?


----------



## Dante

emilynghiem said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson is also famous for having said:[2]
> 
> Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.​
> Thomas DiLorenzo - RationalWiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES, Dante
> And when the "institutions advance and make changes with the times"
> it is by CONSENT.  Things change when someone's CONSENT is left out, and that group petitions for their interests or objections to be included in policy instead of excluded. It would not make sense to change things where it then violates or excludes other people's consent, because that wouldn't fix the problem but replace it with a different conflict that has to be worked out again. Why not resolve all objections and conflicts, as they arise, and get the laws written and passed by consent? Why try to push bills through KNOWING there are fundamental objections.
> 
> When a law or contract is changed, it should be by the MUTUAL consent of the parties affected.
> NOT by some elite faction that abuses the media to tell other people what the terms need to change to, and won't take into account their input, perspectives and effect on people being overruled.
> 
> Democratic process is not about one group bullying another "by majority rule"
> as the parties would have it.
> 
> Jefferson did believe there was some element of "divine providence."
> That sometimes public policy should not be left to public opinion,
> but that God might bestow certain duties or wisdom on the leaders of govt
> to make decisions that aren't to be swayed by "pandering to what is popular."
> 
> That is probably where the left and right part ways and distrust the other:
> The Left distrusts when the Right believes that God ordains some things
> and that govt is supposed to serve that higher truth, regardless of those whose beliefs disagree.
> Likewise, the Right distrusts when the Left tries to dictate "the will of the people" and mandate public policy based on  what they deem to be politically correct agenda, even in conflict with half the nation.
> 
> both the left and right have a different way of justifying
> when it is okay to override the dissent of the opposing views.
> That is where they both claim the other is abusing govt to establish
> private political agenda; whether this imposition on the public
> is blamed on religious bias, or political secular beliefs.
> 
> It's still the same complaint.
> 
> The REAL issue, Dante, is whether the group that is pushing their religious or political agenda
> is one that you align with or not.
> 
> And Govt laws are not supposed to be determined by "which group's beliefs are more popular"
> or have more members to push that through.
> 
> Does it make a difference if the belief set being pushed onto the public
> is religious, secular or political in its expression?
> 
> Isn't a belief by any other name still a belief?
Click to expand...

consensus, look it up.  you can't please everybody. it's irrational


----------



## Sonny Clark

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?
> 
> See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
> 
> 
> To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
> "The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte
> 
> hmm...
Click to expand...

I put him on "ignore" a couple of months ago. He's the only one that I've put on ignore. You can imagine why. It's like trying to reason with a fence post. And, he can't conduct a conversation without "look dear", or some other ridiculous remark. His name calling and personal attacks account for 99% of his conversations. Good luck with him. I failed in my attempts to have meaningful conversations with him. Finally, I gave up, which is very rare for me.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dante said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson is also famous for having said:[2]
> 
> Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.​
> Thomas DiLorenzo - RationalWiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES, Dante
> And when the "institutions advance and make changes with the times"
> it is by CONSENT.  Things change when someone's CONSENT is left out, and that group petitions for their interests or objections to be included in policy instead of excluded. It would not make sense to change things where it then violates or excludes other people's consent, because that wouldn't fix the problem but replace it with a different conflict that has to be worked out again. Why not resolve all objections and conflicts, as they arise, and get the laws written and passed by consent? Why try to push bills through KNOWING there are fundamental objections.
> 
> When a law or contract is changed, it should be by the MUTUAL consent of the parties affected.
> NOT by some elite faction that abuses the media to tell other people what the terms need to change to, and won't take into account their input, perspectives and effect on people being overruled.
> 
> Democratic process is not about one group bullying another "by majority rule"
> as the parties would have it.
> 
> Jefferson did believe there was some element of "divine providence."
> That sometimes public policy should not be left to public opinion,
> but that God might bestow certain duties or wisdom on the leaders of govt
> to make decisions that aren't to be swayed by "pandering to what is popular."
> 
> That is probably where the left and right part ways and distrust the other:
> The Left distrusts when the Right believes that God ordains some things
> and that govt is supposed to serve that higher truth, regardless of those whose beliefs disagree.
> Likewise, the Right distrusts when the Left tries to dictate "the will of the people" and mandate public policy based on  what they deem to be politically correct agenda, even in conflict with half the nation.
> 
> both the left and right have a different way of justifying
> when it is okay to override the dissent of the opposing views.
> That is where they both claim the other is abusing govt to establish
> private political agenda; whether this imposition on the public
> is blamed on religious bias, or political secular beliefs.
> 
> It's still the same complaint.
> 
> The REAL issue, Dante, is whether the group that is pushing their religious or political agenda
> is one that you align with or not.
> 
> And Govt laws are not supposed to be determined by "which group's beliefs are more popular"
> or have more members to push that through.
> 
> Does it make a difference if the belief set being pushed onto the public
> is religious, secular or political in its expression?
> 
> Isn't a belief by any other name still a belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> consensus, look it up.  you can't please everybody. it's irrational
Click to expand...


Look up mediation. It's not about pleasing everyone.
It's about resolving conflicts that get in the way.

For example, suppose you have 12 people who are sharing a house.
7 want all the walls white and 5 want all the walls black.
So they paint their bedrooms different, to get what they want.
And they work out some of the other shared rooms to be black, white or a mix.

The whole house isn't all white or all black.
That's not what consensus means.

It means agreeing which rooms are private and people can paint them what they want.
And which are shared which means they have to decide together what goes on there.
And if they REALLY can't share the space together, they can look at moving into separate spaces rather than fighting to control each other in the same space.

Most of the fighting is freaking out and not trusting that the other people
sharing the same  house aren't going to take it over and run it their way,
because they don't trust the other people either!

They can also agree to move out and get separate houses and do what they want there.
Most of mediation is facilitating what people can do separately and what has to be done jointly.
And if they don't agree, then find a way to separate.

Heck, why not pay people to leave and get their own space.
Some parents end up doing that to get grown up kids to leave.
It's less hassle in the long run, rather than fight under the same roof
when people don't agree on the rules.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Sonny Clark said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?
> 
> See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
> 
> 
> To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
> "The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte
> 
> hmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put him on "ignore" a couple of months ago. He's the only one that I've put on ignore. You can imagine why. It's like trying to reason with a fence post. And, he can't conduct a conversation without "look dear", or some other ridiculous remark. His name calling and personal attacks account for 99% of his conversations. Good luck with him. I failed in my attempts to have meaningful conversations with him. Finally, I gave up, which is very rare for me.
Click to expand...


Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

emilynghiem said:


> Which is not what they say when it comes to abortion, where free choice is more important.



yes, the only freedom liberals want is the freedom to kill their babies!! That way they can have cheap meaningless sex with whomever they want and continue to preside over the death of love and family in America! Who needs love and family-right??


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?
> 
> See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
> 
> 
> To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
> "The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte
> 
> hmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put him on "ignore" a couple of months ago. He's the only one that I've put on ignore. You can imagine why. It's like trying to reason with a fence post. And, he can't conduct a conversation without "look dear", or some other ridiculous remark. His name calling and personal attacks account for 99% of his conversations. Good luck with him. I failed in my attempts to have meaningful conversations with him. Finally, I gave up, which is very rare for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
> What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??
Click to expand...


It proves Dante is well read.

the end


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not what they say when it comes to abortion, where free choice is more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the only freedom liberals want is the freedom to kill their babies!! That way they can have cheap meaningless sex with whomever they want and continue to preside over the death of love and family in America! Who needs love and family-right??
Click to expand...

actually we want to kill other people's babies, not our own


----------



## emilynghiem

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not what they say when it comes to abortion, where free choice is more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the only freedom liberals want is the freedom to kill their babies!! That way they can have cheap meaningless sex with whomever they want and continue to preside over the death of love and family in America! Who needs love and family-right??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually we want to kill other people's babies, not our own
Click to expand...


Just because people want FREEDOM from govt mandates 
DOES NOT MEAN we want to kill people with guns, abortion, war, etc.

I don't know anyone who wouldn't prefer PREVENTION over abortion.
Same with guns and war powers used for DEFENSE and DETERRENCE,
not necessarily to kill, which would be prevented if security is maintained properly.

Wanting freedom of religion for Muslims, Atheists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.
does NOT mean wanting to practice any of those things per se.


----------



## emilynghiem

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?
> 
> See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
> 
> 
> To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
> "The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte
> 
> hmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put him on "ignore" a couple of months ago. He's the only one that I've put on ignore. You can imagine why. It's like trying to reason with a fence post. And, he can't conduct a conversation without "look dear", or some other ridiculous remark. His name calling and personal attacks account for 99% of his conversations. Good luck with him. I failed in my attempts to have meaningful conversations with him. Finally, I gave up, which is very rare for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
> What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??
Click to expand...


Maybe he doesn't think Jefferson would necessarily recognize where these things led.
Similar to how Buddhism was built around the teachings of Buddha, who would not recognize a lot of the religious rites these traditions turned into. (Not to mention the followings built around Jesus and the Bible that many people do not think Jesus would recognize either!)

If Jefferson or Jesus were to give their opinions today, on the status of church and state 
institutions, do you think they'd have more to say "yay" or "nay" about?

My guess is the very narrow areas they might agree are on the right track may be in the minority, but finding key points of agreement lends focus to unite and resolve the rest of the messes.


----------



## Dante

emilynghiem said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?
> 
> See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
> 
> 
> To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
> "The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte
> 
> hmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put him on "ignore" a couple of months ago. He's the only one that I've put on ignore. You can imagine why. It's like trying to reason with a fence post. And, he can't conduct a conversation without "look dear", or some other ridiculous remark. His name calling and personal attacks account for 99% of his conversations. Good luck with him. I failed in my attempts to have meaningful conversations with him. Finally, I gave up, which is very rare for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
> What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he doesn't think Jefferson would necessarily recognize where these things led.
> Similar to how Buddhism was built around the teachings of Buddha, who would not recognize a lot of the religious rites these traditions turned into. (Not to mention the followings built around Jesus and the Bible that many people do not think Jesus would recognize either!)
> 
> If Jefferson or Jesus were to give their opinions today, on the status of church and state
> institutions, do you think they'd have more to say "yay" or "nay" about?
> 
> My guess is the very narrow areas they might agree are on the right track may be in the minority, but finding key points of agreement lends focus to unite and resolve the rest of the messes.
Click to expand...

Nope. The Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party  was not formed by Jefferson. The first Republican party never called themselves Jeffersonian Republicans or even Democratic-Republicans. They did not even think of themselves as a 'party' as we understand the usage of the term today. Look it up


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> The Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party  was not formed by Jefferson. The first Republican party never called themselves Jeffersonian Republicans or even Democratic-Republicans. They did not even think of themselves as a 'party' as we understand the usage of the term today. Look it up



*When Jefferson declared in the passage he did include in his first inaguural that: we are all republicans; we are all federalists." he meant really that the party wars were over; that the Republicans had won;and that the Federalists should fit themselves in...*

*A.James Reichley "The Life of the Parties"( most thorough look at Party history ever written) Page 52*

"In referring to political parties  I have adopted the names which the respective parties used in self-designation. Thus the Jeffersonian party has been referred to throughout as the Republican Party. This name came into use early in the 1790's among persons who considered themselves of a common political "interest", and the term "Republican interest" was generally used until it was replaced by the more definite "Republican Party".

The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

*from Congressional Record: ( a primary source, not a liberal historian)

(1797-1799)*



Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)


Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

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

*6th Congress (1799-1801)*

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

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

*7th Congress (1801-1803)*

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> . The Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party  was not formed by Jefferson.



of course if true the liberal illiterate would not be so afraid to say who formed it an what the evidence of that is. What can we learn from his fear?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?
> 
> See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
> 
> 
> To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
> "The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte
> 
> hmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put him on "ignore" a couple of months ago. He's the only one that I've put on ignore. You can imagine why. It's like trying to reason with a fence post. And, he can't conduct a conversation without "look dear", or some other ridiculous remark. His name calling and personal attacks account for 99% of his conversations. Good luck with him. I failed in my attempts to have meaningful conversations with him. Finally, I gave up, which is very rare for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
> What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves Dante is well read.
> 
> the end
Click to expand...

Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party  was not formed by Jefferson. The first Republican party never called themselves Jeffersonian Republicans or even Democratic-Republicans. They did not even think of themselves as a 'party' as we understand the usage of the term today. Look it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When Jefferson declared in the passage he did include in his first inaguural that: we are all republicans; we are all federalists." he meant really that the party wars were over; that the Republicans had won;and that the Federalists should fit themselves in...*
> 
> *A.James Reichley "The Life of the Parties"( most thorough look at Party history ever written) Page 52*
> 
> "In referring to political parties  I have adopted the names which the respective parties used in self-designation. Thus the Jeffersonian party has been referred to throughout as the Republican Party. This name came into use early in the 1790's among persons who considered themselves of a common political "interest", and the term "Republican interest" was generally used until it was replaced by the more definite "Republican Party".
> 
> The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr.
Click to expand...

your ignorant arse is quoting almost every single item out of context. You have no clue what you are cutting and pasting. 

Read a fucking Book you moron


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?
> 
> See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
> 
> 
> To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
> "The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801)  by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte
> 
> hmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I put him on "ignore" a couple of months ago. He's the only one that I've put on ignore. You can imagine why. It's like trying to reason with a fence post. And, he can't conduct a conversation without "look dear", or some other ridiculous remark. His name calling and personal attacks account for 99% of his conversations. Good luck with him. I failed in my attempts to have meaningful conversations with him. Finally, I gave up, which is very rare for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
> What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves Dante is well read.
> 
> the end
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
> What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??
Click to expand...


Fact: Jefferson had little to do with the _formation_ of Jeffersonian Republican Party


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> Fact: Jefferson had little to do with the _formation_ of Jeffersonian Republican Party



100% stupid and liberal of course which explains why the liberal cant say who had most to do with formation of Jefferson Republican Party, if not Jefferson,  in 1793 and what the evidence of that is.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> Fact: Jefferson had little to do with the _formation_ of Jeffersonian Republican Party



a liberal too slow to know that anyone can assert a fact, but that assertion is very different from having evidence that it is a fact.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact: Jefferson had little to do with the _formation_ of Jeffersonian Republican Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% stupid and liberal of course which explains why the liberal cant say who had most to do with formation of Jefferson Republican Party, if not Jefferson,  in 1793 and what the evidence of that is.
Click to expand...

name given pages back. 

go do your homework


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact: Jefferson had little to do with the _formation_ of Jeffersonian Republican Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% stupid and liberal of course which explains why the liberal cant say who had most to do with formation of Jefferson Republican Party, if not Jefferson,  in 1793 and what the evidence of that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> name given pages back.
> 
> go do your homework
Click to expand...


100% stupid and liberal of course which explains why the goof liberal cant say who had most to do with formation of Jefferson Republican Party, if not Jefferson, in 1793 and what the evidence of that is.


----------



## Dante

Special Ed is always ignoring posts and ignoring content of posts

he just posts as if what anyone else posts is not really there


----------



## Dante

Ed can ruin a perfectly good topic. I guess we all are to blame for taking him seriously


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> Special Ed is always ignoring posts and ignoring content of posts
> 
> he just posts as if what anyone else posts is not really there



From Congressional Record( a primary source, not liberal historian)

*5th Congress (1797-1799)*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed is always ignoring posts and ignoring content of posts
> 
> he just posts as if what anyone else posts is not really there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Congressional Record( a primary source, not liberal historian)
> *5th Congress (1797-1799)*
> 
> 
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *6th Congress (1799-1801)*
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *7th Congress (1801-1803)*
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
Click to expand...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed is always ignoring posts and ignoring content of posts
> 
> he just posts as if what anyone else posts is not really there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Congressional Record( a primary source, not liberal historian)
> *5th Congress (1797-1799)
> 5th Congress (1797-1799)
> 
> 
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6th Congress (1799-1801)
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7th Congress (1801-1803)
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *6th Congress (1799-1801)*
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *7th Congress (1801-1803)*
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dante

a truly bizarre phenomena


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed is always ignoring posts and ignoring content of posts
> 
> he just posts as if what anyone else posts is not really there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Congressional Record( a primary source, not liberal historian)
> *5th Congress (1797-1799)
> 5th Congress (1797-1799)
> 
> 
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6th Congress (1799-1801)
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7th Congress (1801-1803)
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *6th Congress (1799-1801)*
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *7th Congress (1801-1803)*
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Dante said:


> a truly bizarre phenomena


*5th Congress (1797-1799)*



Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

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

*6th Congress (1799-1801)*

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

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

*7th Congress (1801-1803)*

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34


----------



## Dante

a bot, Special Ed is a bot.

finally figured IT out


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> a bot, Special Ed is a bot.
> 
> finally figured IT out


"Historians do not agree on the details surrounding the origin of Parties. Some believe  that Jefferson forged the Republican party from coalition of existing state and local parties"....[in the 1790's].

Page 31, Political Parties in America by Robert Huckshorn( most popular Political Science text on parties in USA.


"Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican."

- Susan Dunn, Jefferson's Second Revolution.


----------



## Dad2three

emilynghiem said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is not what they say when it comes to abortion, where free choice is more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, the only freedom liberals want is the freedom to kill their babies!! That way they can have cheap meaningless sex with whomever they want and continue to preside over the death of love and family in America! Who needs love and family-right??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually we want to kill other people's babies, not our own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because people want FREEDOM from govt mandates
> DOES NOT MEAN we want to kill people with guns, abortion, war, etc.
> 
> I don't know anyone who wouldn't prefer PREVENTION over abortion.
> Same with guns and war powers used for DEFENSE and DETERRENCE,
> not necessarily to kill, which would be prevented if security is maintained properly.
> 
> Wanting freedom of religion for Muslims, Atheists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.
> does NOT mean wanting to practice any of those things per se.
Click to expand...



Freedom FROM Gov't mandates? I think by going with the BIG FEDERAL Gov't Constitutions got rid of the libertarian BS that has NEVER worked anywhere, ever!


----------



## Dad2three

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact: Jefferson had little to do with the _formation_ of Jeffersonian Republican Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% stupid and liberal of course which explains why the liberal cant say who had most to do with formation of Jefferson Republican Party, if not Jefferson,  in 1793 and what the evidence of that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> name given pages back.
> 
> go do your homework
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100% stupid and liberal of course which explains why the goof liberal cant say who had most to do with formation of Jefferson Republican Party, if not Jefferson, in 1793 and what the evidence of that is.
Click to expand...



Just about anyone whose read history about the early *Democratic-Republican Party*  (later split  to become the Democratic party or WHIGS) knows James Madison started it Bubba, why don't you? They were the anti Federalists (didn't want the Constitution dummy!)


----------



## Dad2three

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed is always ignoring posts and ignoring content of posts
> 
> he just posts as if what anyone else posts is not really there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Congressional Record( a primary source, not liberal historian)
> *5th Congress (1797-1799)
> 5th Congress (1797-1799)
> 
> 
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6th Congress (1799-1801)
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7th Congress (1801-1803)
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *6th Congress (1799-1801)*
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *7th Congress (1801-1803)*
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> a truly bizarre phenomena
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *5th Congress (1797-1799)*
> 
> 
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *6th Congress (1799-1801)*
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *7th Congress (1801-1803)*
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
Click to expand...




*Democratic-Republican Party*


*Alternate title: * Jeffersonian Republicans

*Democratic-Republican Party,* originally (1792–98) Republican Party,  first opposition political party in the United States. Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party, its members held power nationally between 1801 and 1825.* It was the direct antecedent of the present Democratic Party.*

During the two administrations of President George Washington (1789–97), many former Anti-Federalists—*who had resisted adoption of the new federal Constitution (1787)—began to unite in opposition to the fiscal program of Alexander Hamilton, secretary of the treasury.* After Hamilton and other proponents of a strong central government and a loose interpretation of the Constitution formed the Federalist Party in 1791, those who favoured states’ rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution rallied under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, who had served as Washington’s first secretary of state. Jefferson’s supporters, deeply influenced by the ideals of the French Revolution (1789), first adopted the name Republican to emphasize their antimonarchical views.

Notwithstanding the party’s antielitist foundations, the first three Democratic-Republican presidents—Jefferson (1801–09), James Madison (1809–17), and James Monroe (1817–25)—were all wealthy, aristocratic Southern planters, though all three shared the same liberal political philosophy. Jefferson narrowly defeated the Federalist John Adams in the election of 1800; his victory demonstrated that power could be transferred peacefully between parties under the Constitution. Once in office, the Democratic-Republicans attempted to scale back Federalist programs but actually overturned few of the institutions they had criticized (e.g., the Bank of the United States was retained until its charter expired in 1811). Nevertheless, Jefferson made a genuine effort to make his administration *appear *more democratic and egalitarian: he walked to the Capitol for his inauguration rather than ride in a coach-and-six, and he sent his annual message to Congress by messenger, rather than reading it personally. Federal excises were repealed, the national debt was retired, and the size of the armed forces was greatly reduced. However, the demands of foreign relations (such as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803*) often forced Jefferson and his successors into a nationalistic stance reminiscent of the Federalists.*


Democratic-Republican Party political party United States Encyclopedia Britannica


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed is always ignoring posts and ignoring content of posts
> 
> he just posts as if what anyone else posts is not really there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Congressional Record( a primary source, not liberal historian)
> *5th Congress (1797-1799)
> 5th Congress (1797-1799)
> 
> 
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6th Congress (1799-1801)
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7th Congress (1801-1803)
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *6th Congress (1799-1801)*
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *7th Congress (1801-1803)*
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> a truly bizarre phenomena
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *5th Congress (1797-1799)*
> 
> 
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *6th Congress (1799-1801)*
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *7th Congress (1801-1803)*
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Democratic-Republican Party*
> 
> 
> *Alternate title: * Jeffersonian Republicans
> 
> *Democratic-Republican Party,* originally (1792–98) Republican Party,  first opposition political party in the United States. Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party, its members held power nationally between 1801 and 1825.* It was the direct antecedent of the present Democratic Party.*
> 
> During the two administrations of President George Washington (1789–97), many former Anti-Federalists—*who had resisted adoption of the new federal Constitution (1787)—began to unite in opposition to the fiscal program of Alexander Hamilton, secretary of the treasury.* After Hamilton and other proponents of a strong central government and a loose interpretation of the Constitution formed the Federalist Party in 1791, those who favoured states’ rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution rallied under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, who had served as Washington’s first secretary of state. Jefferson’s supporters, deeply influenced by the ideals of the French Revolution (1789), first adopted the name Republican to emphasize their antimonarchical views.
> 
> Notwithstanding the party’s antielitist foundations, the first three Democratic-Republican presidents—Jefferson (1801–09), James Madison (1809–17), and James Monroe (1817–25)—were all wealthy, aristocratic Southern planters, though all three shared the same liberal political philosophy. Jefferson narrowly defeated the Federalist John Adams in the election of 1800; his victory demonstrated that power could be transferred peacefully between parties under the Constitution. Once in office, the Democratic-Republicans attempted to scale back Federalist programs but actually overturned few of the institutions they had criticized (e.g., the Bank of the United States was retained until its charter expired in 1811). Nevertheless, Jefferson made a genuine effort to make his administration *appear *more democratic and egalitarian: he walked to the Capitol for his inauguration rather than ride in a coach-and-six, and he sent his annual message to Congress by messenger, rather than reading it personally. Federal excises were repealed, the national debt was retired, and the size of the armed forces was greatly reduced. However, the demands of foreign relations (such as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803*) often forced Jefferson and his successors into a nationalistic stance reminiscent of the Federalists.*
> 
> 
> Democratic-Republican Party political party United States Encyclopedia Britannica
Click to expand...


Does Dumbto3 have any idea why cut and pasted from an encyclopedia???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dad2three said:


> Just about anyone whose read history about the early *Democratic-Republican Party*  (later split  to become the Democratic party or WHIGS) knows James Madison started it )



If so  Dumbto3 would not be so afraid to present his evidence?? What does his fear teach us?


Dumbto3: "those who favoured states’ rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution rallied under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson",[to form Republican Party]

See why the liberal is known as "dumbto3". His arrogance and ignorance compete with each other.


----------



## Friends

The United States Constitution is vaguely worded, and open to various interpretations. Nevertheless, reactionaries like to claim that it requires laissez faire capitalism.

Social liberals like to find new rights, like the right to an abortion, that are not mentioned in the Constitution, and that would almost certainly have been opposed by those who signed the original document, and who wrote and passed additional amendments.

The Brown v. Board of Education decision  of 1954, which prohibited segregated public schools, was based largely on the Fourteenth Amendment, which states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Nevertheless, the same Congress that voted for the Fourteenth Amendment, also voted to keep the public school system in Washington, DC segregated.

My philosophy on the U.S. Constitution is that if it does not clearly say something we should assume that it is silent on the matter, and leave it up to the U.S. Congress, the state legislatures, and popular referenda.

I dislike the power of the U.S. Supreme Court. That power is not clearly authorized in the Constitution. I have more confidence in 51 percent of the voters than in nine Supreme Court justices who are not elected by the voters, who are appointed for life, and who may change their ideology after they are appointed, as Earl Warren certainly did.

I am very much opposed to the Supreme Court overturning popular legislation that has been in effect for a long time. If the legislation is unconstitutional someone should have noticed long ago.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Think about this for a second...The constitution was wrote by men that fault the FEDERAL government should have the power to tax the states. These people knew the federal government needed funding to maintain a unified military, build infrastructure and many of them believed a standard of economic stability..

Name a first world nation on earth that doesn't? If you can't then your argument is based on nothing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Matthew said:


> Think about this for a second...The constitution was wrote by men that fault the FEDERAL government should have the power to tax the states. These people knew the federal government needed funding to maintain a unified military, build infrastructure and many of them believed a standard of economic stability..
> 
> Name a first world nation on earth that doesn't? If you can't then your argument is based on nothing.



dear, we have 80% of recent medical patents because we have more capitalism and less libturd govt  than other countries. We don't want to be like other first world countries, they want to be like us.

Do you understand??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Matthew said:


> and many of them believed a standard of economic stability..



of course Matt is a typical liberal liar which is why he is so afraid to name "many of them?

What does his fear teach us??

Our Founders wanted and created very very tiny govt. The whole point was to give us freedom from big liberal govt. Does little Matty understand his ABC'c now?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Friends said:


> I have more confidence in 51 percent of the voters than in nine Supreme Court justices


 As a conservative I have my doubts. The court is highly educated, very very thoughtful, and they leave a very clear paper trail. 51% make their decisions based on 30 second TV commercials.


----------



## Centinel

rightwinger said:


> The Constitution is not the law, it is a framework of the Constitution of our government



It's the supreme law of the land. Article 6, paragraph 2.


----------



## rightwinger

Centinel said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is not the law, it is a framework of the Constitution of our government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the supreme law of the land. Article 6, paragraph 2.
Click to expand...

 
Show me some of the "laws" that are in the Constitution


----------



## Centinel

rightwinger said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is not the law, it is a framework of the Constitution of our government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the supreme law of the land. Article 6, paragraph 2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some of the "laws" that are in the Constitution
Click to expand...

The entire document is law. It is the supreme law of the land.


----------



## rightwinger

Centinel said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is not the law, it is a framework of the Constitution of our government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the supreme law of the land. Article 6, paragraph 2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some of the "laws" that are in the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire document is law. It is the supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...

 
OK....show me one of the laws

Describing how our government will be structured is not a law


----------



## Centinel

rightwinger said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is not the law, it is a framework of the Constitution of our government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the supreme law of the land. Article 6, paragraph 2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me some of the "laws" that are in the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire document is law. It is the supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK....show me one of the laws
> 
> Describing how our government will be structured is not a law
Click to expand...


"*This Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."


----------



## rightwinger

This Constitution, *and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance ther*eof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*


----------



## Centinel

rightwinger said:


> This Constitution, *and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance ther*eof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*



I assume you understand the meaning of the word "and".


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## rightwinger

Centinel said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, *and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance ther*eof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you understand the meaning of the word "and".
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You have as yet failed to provide any laws contained in the Constitution....that is where the "and" comes in


----------



## Centinel

rightwinger said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, *and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance ther*eof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you understand the meaning of the word "and".
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have as yet failed to provide any laws contained in the Constitution....that is where the "and" comes in
Click to expand...

I didn't say the constitution contained laws. I said that it is law, the supreme law of the land.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dante

Friends said:


> If the legislation is unconstitutional someone should have noticed long ago.


like interracial marriage?


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 51% make their decisions based on 30 second TV commercials.


mirror


----------



## Dante

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Special Ed is always ignoring posts and ignoring content of posts
> 
> he just posts as if what anyone else posts is not really there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Congressional Record( a primary source, not liberal historian)
> *5th Congress (1797-1799)
> 5th Congress (1797-1799)
> 
> 
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6th Congress (1799-1801)
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7th Congress (1801-1803)
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *6th Congress (1799-1801)*
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *7th Congress (1801-1803)*
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> a truly bizarre phenomena
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *5th Congress (1797-1799)*
> 
> 
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *6th Congress (1799-1801)*
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *7th Congress (1801-1803)*
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Democratic-Republican Party*
> 
> 
> *Alternate title: * Jeffersonian Republicans
> 
> *Democratic-Republican Party,* originally (1792–98) Republican Party,  first opposition political party in the United States. Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party, its members held power nationally between 1801 and 1825.* It was the direct antecedent of the present Democratic Party.*
> 
> During the two administrations of President George Washington (1789–97), many former Anti-Federalists—*who had resisted adoption of the new federal Constitution (1787)—began to unite in opposition to the fiscal program of Alexander Hamilton, secretary of the treasury.* After Hamilton and other proponents of a strong central government and a loose interpretation of the Constitution formed the Federalist Party in 1791, those who favoured states’ rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution rallied under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, who had served as Washington’s first secretary of state. Jefferson’s supporters, deeply influenced by the ideals of the French Revolution (1789), first adopted the name Republican to emphasize their antimonarchical views.
> 
> Notwithstanding the party’s antielitist foundations, the first three Democratic-Republican presidents—Jefferson (1801–09), James Madison (1809–17), and James Monroe (1817–25)—were all wealthy, aristocratic Southern planters, though all three shared the same liberal political philosophy. Jefferson narrowly defeated the Federalist John Adams in the election of 1800; his victory demonstrated that power could be transferred peacefully between parties under the Constitution. Once in office, the Democratic-Republicans attempted to scale back Federalist programs but actually overturned few of the institutions they had criticized (e.g., the Bank of the United States was retained until its charter expired in 1811). Nevertheless, Jefferson made a genuine effort to make his administration *appear *more democratic and egalitarian: he walked to the Capitol for his inauguration rather than ride in a coach-and-six, and he sent his annual message to Congress by messenger, rather than reading it personally. Federal excises were repealed, the national debt was retired, and the size of the armed forces was greatly reduced. However, the demands of foreign relations (such as the Louisiana Purchase in 1803*) often forced Jefferson and his successors into a nationalistic stance reminiscent of the Federalists.*
> 
> 
> Democratic-Republican Party political party United States Encyclopedia Britannica
Click to expand...

"rallied under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson,"   actually, Jefferson came to the party late and he was used to bring people to rally behind the party, but -- the party had started without his input

"facts are stubborn things" - John Adams - the trial of the soldiers who fired upon the riff raff during the so-called Boston Massacre


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> actually, Jefferson came to the party late and he was used to bring people to rally behind the party, but -- the party had started without his input



if true why is the perfect idiot so afraid to provide evidence. What does he learn from his fear?


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, Jefferson came to the party late and he was used to bring people to rally behind the party, but -- the party had started without his input
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if true why is the perfect idiot so afraid to provide evidence. What does he learn from his fear?
Click to expand...



read a book -- or two. can't hurt


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, Jefferson came to the party late and he was used to bring people to rally behind the party, but -- the party had started without his input
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if true why is the perfect idiot so afraid to provide evidence. What does he learn from his fear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> read a book -- or two. can't hurt
Click to expand...


5th time:
if true why is the perfect idiot so afraid to provide evidence. What does he learn from his fear?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Hi C_Clayton_Jones
> Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution...”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> It is not 'my assessment.'
> 
> It is the settled and accepted meaning, nature, and understanding of the Constitution and its case law as acknowledged by American jurists.



It's never settled though.

That is the fallacy of this argument.

Or else why is it that people march in defense of Roe on it's anniversary.  Could it be because they don't want it overturned ????


----------



## Darkwind

Sonny Clark said:


> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?


Look at it this way.

The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country.  It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.

The Constitution itself is the framework of our government.  It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.

The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.

That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was.  We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.

And it isn't pretty.


----------



## Dante

Darkwind said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> Look at it this way.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country.  It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.
> 
> The Constitution itself is the framework of our government.  It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.
> 
> The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.
> 
> That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was.  We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.
> 
> And it isn't pretty.
Click to expand...



Error report: 

"The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country"

The Declaration of Independence was an answer to the world as to why the Colonists believed right was on their side. There was no "route" to go listed in the declaration. It says nothing about forming a government. 

"The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections"   

Many of the framers thought a bill of rights unnecessary. Others insisted some of the rights everyone agreed upon be listed/enumerated. Nothing additional.  

You appear a bit confused. First you say it's the people who "are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land" and then you say it's the government. What's next, them damn governments by and of the people?


----------



## Dante

Sun Devil 92 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Hi C_Clayton_Jones
> Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution...”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> It is not 'my assessment.'
> 
> It is the settled and accepted meaning, nature, and understanding of the Constitution and its case law as acknowledged by American jurists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's never settled though.
> 
> That is the fallacy of this argument.
> 
> Or else why is it that people march in defense of Roe on it's anniversary.  Could it be because they don't want it overturned ????
Click to expand...

you appear confused as to the meaning of the word "settled" in the context

Oh well...


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Dante said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Hi C_Clayton_Jones
> Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution...”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> It is not 'my assessment.'
> 
> It is the settled and accepted meaning, nature, and understanding of the Constitution and its case law as acknowledged by American jurists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's never settled though.
> 
> That is the fallacy of this argument.
> 
> Or else why is it that people march in defense of Roe on it's anniversary.  Could it be because they don't want it overturned ????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you appear confused as to the meaning of the word "settled" in the context
> 
> Oh well...
Click to expand...


Confused or simply incorrect.

I don't mind being wrong.

But I don't believe it changes my point.

Possibly I misunderstood CCJ.


----------



## Darkwind

Dante said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> Look at it this way.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country.  It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.
> 
> The Constitution itself is the framework of our government.  It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.
> 
> The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.
> 
> That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was.  We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.
> 
> And it isn't pretty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Error report:
> 
> "The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country"
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was an answer to the world as to why the Colonists believed right was on their side. There was no "route" to go listed in the declaration. It says nothing about forming a government.
> 
> "The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections"
> 
> Many of the framers thought a bill of rights unnecessary. Others insisted some of the rights everyone agreed upon be listed/enumerated. Nothing additional.
> 
> You appear a bit confused. First you say it's the people who "are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land" and then you say it's the government. What's next, them damn governments by and of the people?
Click to expand...

Given how easy it is to read the DOI, your assertions are remarkably self serving, and wrong.


----------



## Dante

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Hi C_Clayton_Jones
> Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution...”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> It is not 'my assessment.'
> 
> It is the settled and accepted meaning, nature, and understanding of the Constitution and its case law as acknowledged by American jurists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's never settled though.
> 
> That is the fallacy of this argument.
> 
> Or else why is it that people march in defense of Roe on it's anniversary.  Could it be because they don't want it overturned ????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you appear confused as to the meaning of the word "settled" in the context
> 
> Oh well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confused or simply incorrect.
> 
> I don't mind being wrong.
> 
> But I don't believe it changes my point.
> 
> Possibly I misunderstood CCJ.
Click to expand...


case law is settled law. The fact that all laws can be overturned does not equate them being unsettled. It may appear at first to be confusing but it's not


----------



## Dante

Darkwind said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> Look at it this way.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country.  It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.
> 
> The Constitution itself is the framework of our government.  It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.
> 
> The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.
> 
> That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was.  We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.
> 
> And it isn't pretty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Error report:
> 
> "The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country"
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was an answer to the world as to why the Colonists believed right was on their side. There was no "route" to go listed in the declaration. It says nothing about forming a government.
> 
> "The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections"
> 
> Many of the framers thought a bill of rights unnecessary. Others insisted some of the rights everyone agreed upon be listed/enumerated. Nothing additional.
> 
> You appear a bit confused. First you say it's the people who "are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land" and then you say it's the government. What's next, them damn governments by and of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given how easy it is to read the DOI, your assertions are remarkably self serving, and wrong.
Click to expand...


I bet you walk around with a pocket constitution and attend meetings where like Bible study groups, you struggle to read and comprehend simple words

then you read the DoI
how many HIDDEN meanings have you found in the Declaration?


----------



## Dante

At the dimwitted one known as Darkwind 

The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.​
Hmm, your words quoted above: where do you find that crap in the document?
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript


----------



## Darkwind

Dante said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> Look at it this way.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country.  It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.
> 
> The Constitution itself is the framework of our government.  It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.
> 
> The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.
> 
> That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was.  We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.
> 
> And it isn't pretty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Error report:
> 
> "The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country"
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was an answer to the world as to why the Colonists believed right was on their side. There was no "route" to go listed in the declaration. It says nothing about forming a government.
> 
> "The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections"
> 
> Many of the framers thought a bill of rights unnecessary. Others insisted some of the rights everyone agreed upon be listed/enumerated. Nothing additional.
> 
> You appear a bit confused. First you say it's the people who "are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land" and then you say it's the government. What's next, them damn governments by and of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given how easy it is to read the DOI, your assertions are remarkably self serving, and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet you walk around with a pocket constitution and attend meetings where like Bible study groups, you struggle to read and comprehend simple words
> 
> then you read the DoI
> how many HIDDEN meanings have you found in the Declaration?
Click to expand...

I'd bet your wrong.  Oh, I'm right about that too....

Care to wager on how little it matters?


----------



## Darkwind

Dante said:


> At the dimwitted one known as Darkwind
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.​
> Hmm, your words quoted above: where do you find that crap in the document?
> Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript


Wow.  This is your reply?

Are you seriously saying you didn't understand the meaning of what I said and instead, your going to the DOI looking for the words, "Mission Statement"?

I now see that you are either to incapacitated to deal with, or you should consider having someone look after your affairs for you so that you are not taken advantage of.


----------



## Dante

Darkwind said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the dimwitted one known as Darkwind
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.​
> Hmm, your words quoted above: where do you find that crap in the document?
> Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is your reply?
> 
> Are you seriously saying you didn't understand the meaning of what I said and instead, your going to the DOI looking for the words, "Mission Statement"?
> 
> I now see that you are either to incapacitated to deal with, or you should consider having someone look after your affairs for you so that you are not taken advantage of.
Click to expand...


reading and comprehension not your strong suit or worse...did you get spoon fed that bs on a blog or even worse -- a classroom run by a frustrated academic inebriate?


----------



## Darkwind

Dante said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the dimwitted one known as Darkwind
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.​
> Hmm, your words quoted above: where do you find that crap in the document?
> Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is your reply?
> 
> Are you seriously saying you didn't understand the meaning of what I said and instead, your going to the DOI looking for the words, "Mission Statement"?
> 
> I now see that you are either to incapacitated to deal with, or you should consider having someone look after your affairs for you so that you are not taken advantage of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> reading and comprehension not your strong suit or worse...did you get spoon fed that bs on a blog or even worse -- a classroom run by a frustrated academic inebriate?
Click to expand...

Unlike you, I tend to think about the things I read, and apply them to a more modern context.

I'd be curious as to what you think about it, but the fact that you cannot even grasp the notion that a mission statement is a declaration of intent, and that the DOI lists a score or more of grievances against the crown, which amount to a declaration of intent, then you'd likely also miss the fact that from such intents flow a purpose.

Much like a business, there is an intent for going into business (starting a country from whole cloth) and that intent is outlined by a list of things that will be done in order to achieve the goals set forth.

I'm sorry that no one has provided you with talking points to refute this notion, but rest assured that even if they do, it won't matter since you've already proven yourself unable to deal with concepts that you have never run across.

Either way, your denial or beliefs won't alter what I believe, and I'll continue to advocate for what I believe to people who are open-minded enough to consider it.

No one should even try to change a closed mind like yours.


----------



## Dante

Darkwind said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the dimwitted one known as Darkwind
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.​
> Hmm, your words quoted above: where do you find that crap in the document?
> Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is your reply?
> 
> Are you seriously saying you didn't understand the meaning of what I said and instead, your going to the DOI looking for the words, "Mission Statement"?
> 
> I now see that you are either to incapacitated to deal with, or you should consider having someone look after your affairs for you so that you are not taken advantage of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> reading and comprehension not your strong suit or worse...did you get spoon fed that bs on a blog or even worse -- a classroom run by a frustrated academic inebriate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you, I tend to think about the things I read, and apply them to a more modern context.
> 
> I'd be curious as to what you think about it, but the fact that you cannot even grasp the notion that a mission statement is a declaration of intent, and that the DOI lists a score or more of grievances against the crown, which amount to a declaration of intent, then you'd likely also miss the fact that from such intents flow a purpose.
> 
> Much like a business, there is an intent for going into business (starting a country from whole cloth) and that intent is outlined by a list of things that will be done in order to achieve the goals set forth.
> 
> I'm sorry that no one has provided you with talking points to refute this notion, but rest assured that even if they do, it won't matter since you've already proven yourself unable to deal with concepts that you have never run across.
> 
> Either way, your denial or beliefs won't alter what I believe, and I'll continue to advocate for what I believe to people who are open-minded enough to consider it.
> 
> No one should even try to change a closed mind like yours.
Click to expand...


The Declaration of Independence as a Mission Statement?

How very simplistic and lazy a mind you posses


----------



## Darkwind

Dante said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the dimwitted one known as Darkwind
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country. It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.​
> Hmm, your words quoted above: where do you find that crap in the document?
> Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is your reply?
> 
> Are you seriously saying you didn't understand the meaning of what I said and instead, your going to the DOI looking for the words, "Mission Statement"?
> 
> I now see that you are either to incapacitated to deal with, or you should consider having someone look after your affairs for you so that you are not taken advantage of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> reading and comprehension not your strong suit or worse...did you get spoon fed that bs on a blog or even worse -- a classroom run by a frustrated academic inebriate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you, I tend to think about the things I read, and apply them to a more modern context.
> 
> I'd be curious as to what you think about it, but the fact that you cannot even grasp the notion that a mission statement is a declaration of intent, and that the DOI lists a score or more of grievances against the crown, which amount to a declaration of intent, then you'd likely also miss the fact that from such intents flow a purpose.
> 
> Much like a business, there is an intent for going into business (starting a country from whole cloth) and that intent is outlined by a list of things that will be done in order to achieve the goals set forth.
> 
> I'm sorry that no one has provided you with talking points to refute this notion, but rest assured that even if they do, it won't matter since you've already proven yourself unable to deal with concepts that you have never run across.
> 
> Either way, your denial or beliefs won't alter what I believe, and I'll continue to advocate for what I believe to people who are open-minded enough to consider it.
> 
> No one should even try to change a closed mind like yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence as a Mission Statement?
> 
> How very simplistic and lazy a mind you posses
Click to expand...

Since I've reduced you to school yard insults that don't affect Me, I'll bid you a pleasant evening.


----------



## Dante

Wow, Darkwind reads and applies what she's read to a more modern context.

wtf is that supposed to mean in the context of the thread?

   sounds like the Darkwind likes to hear herself sound smart -- in 7th grade


----------



## DGS49

Consider the following:  When Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, he dated the founding of the country at 1776 (87 years before 1863) - NOT 1789, the date when the Constitution was ratified.  September, 1789 is when the Federal Government was founded, but the birth of the nation (as opposed to the Government) was 1776.

For anyone wanting to understand the Constitution, it must be considered alongside the principles articulated in the DoI.  Most poignantly, the Second Amendment is a curious provision until you consider the words of the DoI, to wit, "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government..."  Clearly, the right to keep and bear arms flows out of the right of citizens to abolish a government that forgets its rightful purpose and authority. 

The right of the USSC to interpret laws and to determine finally their "constitutionality" is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but is a logical construct that has been accepted for a couple hundred years.  But it was not until relatively recently that the Court had the temerity to begin reading nonsense into the interstices of the words themselves, and to create new "constitutional rights" that would have outraged the very people who crafted the words that the USSC cites.

The "freedom of speech" that was intended to prevent government from punishing people who criticized government and office holders, was used to void local censorship laws that had been around since the beginning of the nation.

Regulating "...commerce...among the several states..." became an umbrella that now permits the Federal government to force coal-fired power plants into premature obsolescence.

The right of the Federal Government to impose compulsory retirement and elderly health insurance programs was created out of thin air - in the process of "interpreting" the Constitution.

The expression, "settled law" is often used by Prog's to indicate that some legal and constitutional subjects are now beyond discussion and/or debate.  But when the USSC makes up shit it can never be "settled law," and those of us who respect the Constitution as the founding document of a potentially great central government will continue, if you please, to hope that some future President will have the balls (or ovaries if you must) to appoint USSC justices who can READ and WRITE, and who are not so totally compromised as to buy into this mountain of "constitutional" bullshit which we are all suffering with at present.


----------



## regent

One does not have to read and write or even to have a law degree to be a supreme court judge. Supreme Court Judges are political appointees based on their politics, and the whole procedure is political. On occasion, after appointment, a judge will drop the politics and decide in favor of what he believes to be a better America. They are rare but we have had them and, of course, they are labeled as "traitors to their class."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> case law is settled law.



until someone like Clarence Thomas decides the case law is too liberal and thus no longer consistent with Constitution. Then he throws it all out in favor of a more literal reading of the Constitution.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> . On occasion, after appointment, a judge will drop the politics and decide in favor of what he believes to be a better America.


100% stupid and liberal. A judges job is to uphold the Constitution and interpret laws as intended by the legislatures who wrote them, not to do what he believes what is best for America you total idiot liberal.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

DGS49 said:


> The right of the USSC to interpret laws and to determine finally their "constitutionality" is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but is a logical construct that has been accepted for a couple hundred years..



Actually Marbury v Madison established judicial review in 1803 or so. According to Judge Reinquist it sat around unused for 100 years before liberals thought to twist it and use it as an excuse for SCOTUS to intercede where they had no business. So, it is by no means a forgone conclusion that we should continue to grant the court the huge powers it assumed in what is supposed to be a govt with very very limited powers.

The whole liberal enterprise is predicated on the idea of subverting our govt until finally it is liberal communistic. 


Thomas Jefferson: 
the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-16)governance and the vigilance of the producer class."


A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned, this is the sum of good government.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.


----------



## regent

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
General Douglas MacArthur


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
> General Douglas MacArthur



total idiot liberal as always. He was a classical liberal like Milton Friedman. ie,, for very limited govt.
Well he did argue with President Truman a lot, and was consequently fired, so I would guess he was Conservative. He was also expected to run as a Republican in the 1952 presidential election, but then endorsed Robert Taft to be the Republican candidate (Eisenhower ended up winning the primaries, though). He also was a major speaker at the Republican National Convention in 1952.


----------



## regent

I would suspect that MacArthur was talking of the framers of the Constitution and their liberalism, so where did Friedman, Truman, Ike and Taft come from, still I guess that's better than changing my post to fit your response.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> I would suspect that MacArthur was talking of the framers of the Constitution and their liberalism,.



framers where classical liberals like Milton Friedman and Thomas Jefferson, ie,. for very very tiny govt. McArthur was darling of conservative Right Wing Republicans and supported Taft when he decided not to run for president as a conservative right winger.

See why we say a liberal will be stupid?


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suspect that MacArthur was talking of the framers of the Constitution and their liberalism,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> framers where classical liberals like Milton Friedman and Thomas Jefferson, ie,. for very very tiny govt. McArthur was darling of conservative Right Wing Republicans and supported Taft when he decided not to run for president as a conservative right winger.
> 
> See why we say a liberal will be stupid?
Click to expand...

Where's the rest of my post?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suspect that MacArthur was talking of the framers of the Constitution and their liberalism,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> framers where classical liberals like Milton Friedman and Thomas Jefferson, ie,. for very very tiny govt. McArthur was darling of conservative Right Wing Republicans and supported Taft when he decided not to run for president as a conservative right winger.
> 
> See why we say a liberal will be stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the rest of my post?
Click to expand...

framers where classical liberals like Milton Friedman and Thomas Jefferson, ie,. for very very tiny govt. McArthur was darling of conservative Right Wing Republicans and supported Taft when he decided not to run for president as a conservative right winger.

See why we say a liberal will be stupid?


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?”
> 
> No.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as originally intended by the Framers, where current Constitutional jurisprudence reflects the principles of freedom and liberty enshrined in the Founding Document.
> 
> As Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in _Lawrence_:
> 
> “Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. *As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.*”



RE: *As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.*

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
I can see where there is a crossing of the line between "separation of church and state"

it is ONE thing to come up with your OWN search for freedom and meaning, and interpretation.
It is ANOTHER thing to ESTABLISH the meaning of law for others AGAINST their beliefs WITHOUT their consent.

Nothing wrong with interpreting laws or religions your own way.
But where we cross the line is imposing our beliefs on others and abusing govt authority to punish them if their beliefs are different.

Different beliefs is NOT the same as disobeying authority with intent to break the law.
We need to distinguish when people are refusing because their BELIEFS are different which are protected
by the very law we also seek to enforce. There cannot be such contradictions, and then BLAME them on others as if to criminalize or penalize them, when the CAUSE of the dissension is not unlawful but from inherent beliefs.

This distinction MUST be made, or it's unfair to treat people of differing beliefs as if these are "criminals trying to break the law or subvert govt authority"

That is criminalizing people for creeds, and a form of discrimination.
We need officials and mediators who can distinguish the difference between conflicts from beliefs,
and truly lawless criminal disrespect for law and order. It is not fair to treat dissension and objection as unlawful
when there is a reason for it that is natural to people by their beliefs and isn't intended at all to be wrongful.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “Hi C_Clayton_Jones
> Your assessment of the meaning of the Constitution...”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> It is not 'my assessment.'
> 
> It is the settled and accepted meaning, nature, and understanding of the Constitution and its case law as acknowledged by American jurists.



C_Clayton_Jones
where we all agree the law gives govt this authority, such as on issues NOT involving beliefs where the conflict is arbitrary and changeable (such as arguing if a highway should be 5 or 6 lanes, if funding for a project should be 3.4 or 5 million, if the term for a certain office should be 2, 4 or 6 years, or if a certain vote should be 2/3, 51% or 100% consensus. These issues do not involve people's personal beliefs and can be decided by govt process, as we AGREE to use it for)

But where the conflicts are a matter of equal BELIEFS clashing, NO, people do NOT agree to submit this decision to the hands of govt to decide, whether Courts or Congress or whoever.
Such as people disagreeing on the terms of Communion, Baptism, Weddings or Funeral Services ==> NO, govt does NOT have authority to decide or compel matters of personal belief and religious practices.

The problem is people do not equally recognize "political beliefs" as private similar to religion.
C_Clayton_Jones you remind me of the far right who so strongly hold their beliefs as universal default truth for all people, they see NO separation from govt and just BELIEVE all govt, judges and citizens should agree it is the truth. They don't see any free choice in the matter, very similar to how you take the Court's word as absolute, without question, similar to fundamentalists.
This is fine for policies we AGREE to submit to that process; but it is NEVER  agreed up to put someone's BELIEFS in the hands of govt to decide for the entire public, like a national religion.

If people's religions are infringing on each other, govt could be used to compel parties to separate or to form an agreement on a contract before it is binding; and quit imposing the conditions of one side on the other.

But to take one side in a dispute between beliefs is govt "establishing a religion" and is against the First Amendment. Liberals call this "separation of church and state" but seem to have trouble distinguishing when Liberal politicians cross the line, and start imposing political beliefs by govt authority, because these beliefs are masked in secular language pushed as "nonreligious' when in fact they constitute personal beliefs not all the public shares.

The day we openly recognize "political beliefs" as requiring separation, the same as "religious beliefs" we might actually make progress in this country working through conflicts instead of bullying each other over them.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

emilynghiem said:


> The day we openly recognize "political beliefs" as requiring separation, the same as "religious beliefs" we might actually make progress in this country working through conflicts instead of bullying each other over them.



gibberish, govts job is to make policy out of different political beliefs, but not to make a new religion out different religions.


----------



## Dante

DGS49


DGS49 said:


> Consider the following:  When Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, he dated the founding of the country at 1776 (87 years before 1863) - NOT 1789, the date when the Constitution was ratified.  September, 1789 is when the Federal Government was founded, but the birth of the nation (as opposed to the Government) was 1776.
> 
> For anyone wanting to understand the Constitution, it must be considered alongside the principles articulated in the DoI.  Most poignantly, the Second Amendment is a curious provision until you consider the words of the DoI, to wit, "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government..."  Clearly, the right to keep and bear arms flows out of the right of citizens to abolish a government that forgets its rightful purpose and authority.
> 
> The right of the USSC to interpret laws and to determine finally their "constitutionality" is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but is a logical construct that has been accepted for a couple hundred years.  But it was not until relatively recently that the Court had the temerity to begin reading nonsense into the interstices of the words themselves, and to create new "constitutional rights" that would have outraged the very people who crafted the words that the USSC cites.
> 
> The "freedom of speech" that was intended to prevent government from punishing people who criticized government and office holders, was used to void local censorship laws that had been around since the beginning of the nation.
> 
> Regulating "...commerce...among the several states..." became an umbrella that now permits the Federal government to force coal-fired power plants into premature obsolescence.
> 
> The right of the Federal Government to impose compulsory retirement and elderly health insurance programs was created out of thin air - in the process of "interpreting" the Constitution.
> 
> The expression, "settled law" is often used by Prog's to indicate that some legal and constitutional subjects are now beyond discussion and/or debate.  But when the USSC makes up shit it can never be "settled law," and those of us who respect the Constitution as the founding document of a potentially great central government will continue, if you please, to hope that some future President will have the balls (or ovaries if you must) to appoint USSC justices who can READ and WRITE, and who are not so totally compromised as to buy into this mountain of "constitutional" bullshit which we are all suffering with at present.



The idea that the USSC should interpret laws and determine their "constitutionality" was not a NEW concept or legal construct. You should learn to read a broader range of history, than be spoon fed narrow selections that fit a preconceived narrative and conclusion

The idea that many of the founders would disagree with modern interpretations is plain nonsense as it is an impossibility to divine. As a matter of fact many of them thought we should not have to love by what they thought.

Stop claiming you 'respect' the Constitution and people who happen to disagree with your opinions somehow are disrespectful of the Constitution.

You my friend are the one making shit up


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Dante

VAgisilly   go away


----------



## Vigilante

Dante said:


> VAgisilly   go away



Good Morning, the DandyLoin!


----------



## AquaAthena

Sonny Clark said:


> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?



I see it as a guide in transition to demise, with it's ashes being placed in a museum for historical relics.


----------



## Dante

Vigilante


Vigilante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> VAgisilly   go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Morning, the DandyLoin!
Click to expand...


Happy Independence Day you Friggin'  Fruity Fruit Loop!


----------



## Vigilante

Dante said:


> Vigilante
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> VAgisilly   go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Morning, the DandyLoin!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Happy Independence Day you Friggin'  Fruity Fruit Loop!
Click to expand...

 Same to you Demented denizen of dozens of demons!


----------



## Dante

Vigilante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> VAgisilly   go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Morning, the DandyLoin!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Happy Independence Day you Friggin'  Fruity Fruit Loop!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same to you Demented denizen of dozens of demons!
Click to expand...



Go celebrate whatever the fuck is you supposedly believe in ... and stay safe


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

AquaAthena said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see it as a guide in transition to demise, with it's ashes being placed in a museum for historical relics.
Click to expand...

You're at liberty to 'see it' as you see fit, provided you understand your perception is ridiculous and wrong.

In addition to being untrue, your post is sophomoric hyperbole, completely unfounded and devoid of merit.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see it as a guide in transition to demise, with it's ashes being placed in a museum for historical relics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're at liberty to 'see it' as you see fit, provided you understand your perception is ridiculous and wrong.
> 
> In addition to being untrue, your post is sophomoric hyperbole, completely unfounded and devoid of merit.
Click to expand...


its really very simple. Our uber conservative Founders  gave us 3 branches of govt and a Bill of Rights because they feared govt above all else and saw it as the source of evil in human history.

Liberal are stupid and childlike, cant understand the founders, and so think of govt like a magical Santa Claus.


----------



## regent

Dante said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> Look at it this way.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country.  It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.
> 
> The Constitution itself is the framework of our government.  It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.
> 
> The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.
> 
> That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was.  We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.
> 
> And it isn't pretty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Error report:
> 
> "The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country"
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was an answer to the world as to why the Colonists believed right was on their side. There was no "route" to go listed in the declaration. It says nothing about forming a government.
> 
> "The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections"
> 
> Many of the framers thought a bill of rights unnecessary. Others insisted some of the rights everyone agreed upon be listed/enumerated. Nothing additional.
> 
> You appear a bit confused. First you say it's the people who "are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land" and then you say it's the government. What's next, them damn governments by and of the people?
Click to expand...

We had already voted independence two days earlier, and the Declaration of Independence was now a form of propaganda asking for help. We needed help from the two thirds of the colonists that were not supporting the revolution and also help from foreign powers mainly France. The Declaration of Independence used the latest ideas from Age of Enlightenment, and the usual tyranny stuff as part of the requests for help.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> Look at it this way.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country.  It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.
> 
> The Constitution itself is the framework of our government.  It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.
> 
> The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.
> 
> That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was.  We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.
> 
> And it isn't pretty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Error report:
> 
> "The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country"
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was an answer to the world as to why the Colonists believed right was on their side. There was no "route" to go listed in the declaration. It says nothing about forming a government.
> 
> "The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections"
> 
> Many of the framers thought a bill of rights unnecessary. Others insisted some of the rights everyone agreed upon be listed/enumerated. Nothing additional.
> 
> You appear a bit confused. First you say it's the people who "are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land" and then you say it's the government. What's next, them damn governments by and of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had already voted independence two days earlier, and the Declaration of Independence was now a form of propaganda asking for help. We needed help from the two thirds of the colonists that were not supporting the revolution and also help from foreign powers mainly France. The Declaration of Independence used the latest ideas from Age of Enlightenment, and the usual tyranny stuff as part of the requests for help.
Click to expand...


Liberals want us to think the Constitution is a guide toward communism when it is the exact opposite.


----------



## Dante

regent said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> Look at it this way.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country.  It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.
> 
> The Constitution itself is the framework of our government.  It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.
> 
> The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.
> 
> That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was.  We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.
> 
> And it isn't pretty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Error report:
> 
> "The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country"
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was an answer to the world as to why the Colonists believed right was on their side. There was no "route" to go listed in the declaration. It says nothing about forming a government.
> 
> "The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections"
> 
> Many of the framers thought a bill of rights unnecessary. Others insisted some of the rights everyone agreed upon be listed/enumerated. Nothing additional.
> 
> You appear a bit confused. First you say it's the people who "are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land" and then you say it's the government. What's next, them damn governments by and of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had already voted independence two days earlier, and the Declaration of Independence was now a form of propaganda asking for help. We needed help from the two thirds of the colonists that were not supporting the revolution and also help from foreign powers mainly France. The Declaration of Independence used the latest ideas from Age of Enlightenment, and the usual tyranny stuff as part of the requests for help.
Click to expand...

pretty good 

not sayin I agree exactly with what you've written, but you are on the road to enlightenment


----------



## Dante

regent said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> Look at it this way.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country.  It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.
> 
> The Constitution itself is the framework of our government.  It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.
> 
> The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.
> 
> That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was.  We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.
> 
> And it isn't pretty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Error report:
> 
> "The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country"
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was an answer to the world as to why the Colonists believed right was on their side. There was no "route" to go listed in the declaration. It says nothing about forming a government.
> 
> "The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections"
> 
> Many of the framers thought a bill of rights unnecessary. Others insisted some of the rights everyone agreed upon be listed/enumerated. Nothing additional.
> 
> You appear a bit confused. First you say it's the people who "are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land" and then you say it's the government. What's next, them damn governments by and of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had already voted independence two days earlier, and the Declaration of Independence was now a form of propaganda asking for help. We needed help from the two thirds of the colonists that were not supporting the revolution and also help from foreign powers mainly France. The Declaration of Independence used the latest ideas from Age of Enlightenment, and the usual tyranny stuff as part of the requests for help.
Click to expand...

pretty good.

I'm not sayin' I agree with it all, but this is the best I've seen here yet


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> Look at it this way.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country.  It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.
> 
> The Constitution itself is the framework of our government.  It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.
> 
> The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.
> 
> That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was.  We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.
> 
> And it isn't pretty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Error report:
> 
> "The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country"
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was an answer to the world as to why the Colonists believed right was on their side. There was no "route" to go listed in the declaration. It says nothing about forming a government.
> 
> "The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections"
> 
> Many of the framers thought a bill of rights unnecessary. Others insisted some of the rights everyone agreed upon be listed/enumerated. Nothing additional.
> 
> You appear a bit confused. First you say it's the people who "are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land" and then you say it's the government. What's next, them damn governments by and of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had already voted independence two days earlier, and the Declaration of Independence was now a form of propaganda asking for help. We needed help from the two thirds of the colonists that were not supporting the revolution and also help from foreign powers mainly France. The Declaration of Independence used the latest ideas from Age of Enlightenment, and the usual tyranny stuff as part of the requests for help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> pretty good.
> 
> I'm not sayin' I agree with it all, but this is the best I've seen here yet
Click to expand...


if the dope who thinks Jefferson didn't found the Jeffersonian Republican Party thinks its the best its really the worst!!


----------



## Dante

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> Look at it this way.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country.  It explains why we chose to go this route and gives the reasons (I think there are 23 of them, though I haven't thought about it in a while and would have to go look) why we decided to chase this dream.
> 
> The Constitution itself is the framework of our government.  It lays out authorities of each branch of government, and provides restrictions on what powers the government can exercise.
> 
> The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections for the citizenry against an abusive government, and corrects some deficiencies in how government is permitted to act along with some provided extra restrictions on government abusing the rights of ALL individuals.
> 
> That people are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land is a form of proof and vindication for why government was restricted as it was.  We are beginning to see the effects of an unfettered government.
> 
> And it isn't pretty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Error report:
> 
> "The Declaration of Independence is the mission statement of the country"
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was an answer to the world as to why the Colonists believed right was on their side. There was no "route" to go listed in the declaration. It says nothing about forming a government.
> 
> "The Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, all provide additional protections"
> 
> Many of the framers thought a bill of rights unnecessary. Others insisted some of the rights everyone agreed upon be listed/enumerated. Nothing additional.
> 
> You appear a bit confused. First you say it's the people who "are beginning to ignore the highest law of the land" and then you say it's the government. What's next, them damn governments by and of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had already voted independence two days earlier, and the Declaration of Independence was now a form of propaganda asking for help. We needed help from the two thirds of the colonists that were not supporting the revolution and also help from foreign powers mainly France. The Declaration of Independence used the latest ideas from Age of Enlightenment, and the usual tyranny stuff as part of the requests for help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> pretty good.
> 
> I'm not sayin' I agree with it all, but this is the best I've seen here yet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if the dope who thinks Jefferson didn't found the Jeffersonian Republican Party thinks its the best its really the worst!!
Click to expand...


The next segment of the Dante Program is brought to you by Special Ed. Special Ed, when a wasted mind is a terrible thing


----------



## Dante

Hey SpecEd, have you read any of the books on the reading list yet? You know, the ones that explain how the Democratic-Republican party was formed and how?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dante said:


> Hey SpecEd, have you read any of the books on the reading list yet? You know, the ones that explain how the Democratic-Republican party was formed and how?



if the dope who thinks Jefferson didn't found the Jeffersonian Republican Party thinks its the best its really the worst!! Why Dante so afraid to tell us who really founded the party?? What does his fear teach us?


----------



## Dante

SpecEd belongs in federal prison on hijacking and stalking charges


----------



## G.T.

Sonny no law prevents the flying of the american flag.


----------



## Sonny Clark

G.T. said:


> Sonny no law prevents the flying of the american flag.


And I never once said there was a law. So, your point is?


----------



## Dante

G.T. said:


> Sonny no law prevents the flying of the american flag.


Huh?

say what I'm thinking ain't so


----------



## G.T.

Sonny Clark said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny no law prevents the flying of the american flag.
> 
> 
> 
> And I never once said there was a law. So, your point is?
Click to expand...

Your restrictive this and that?
From the op?

Yea.


And free speech has been restricted since the country was founded. 

You not being aware of that isnt an excuse for any of the drama queening.


----------



## Dante

link? can we see a link to Sonny saying something so -- Sonny-ish?

I see where Sonny-boy claims the shit will hit the fan soon...so Sonny-ish

So What Next Redesign The American Flag Pink Orange Mint Green Honoring The New Three Genders US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

but haven't found him going off his rocker -- yet


----------



## Dante

Sonny Clark said:


> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?


"_Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?_" - false choice  "_What about The Bill of Rights?_" - what about it? It's a part of the Constitution

"_Have we altered the intent of the Constitution?_"  just what do you imagine the intent of the US Constitution was?  Hmm... 

not one of your links addresses this nonsense: "_Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power_." -- *where and when have restrictions on flying the American Flag been proposed? *


----------



## Sonny Clark

Dante said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny no law prevents the flying of the american flag.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> say what I'm thinking ain't so
Click to expand...

Where he got that from, I have no idea.


----------



## Sonny Clark

G.T. said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny no law prevents the flying of the american flag.
> 
> 
> 
> And I never once said there was a law. So, your point is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your restrictive this and that?
> From the op?
> 
> Yea.
> 
> 
> And free speech has been restricted since the country was founded.
> 
> You not being aware of that isnt an excuse for any of the drama queening.
Click to expand...

Where have I ever said that there was a law against flying the American flag? You accused me, now back it up.


----------



## G.T.

Sonny Clark said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny no law prevents the flying of the american flag.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> say what I'm thinking ain't so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where he got that from, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

How the f*** do you restrict something if not by law? Say because I said so? Through threw thru


----------



## Sonny Clark

Dante said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> "_Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?_" - false choice  "_What about The Bill of Rights?_" - what about it? It's a part of the Constitution
> 
> "_Have we altered the intent of the Constitution?_"  just what do you imagine the intent of the US Constitution was?  Hmm...
> 
> not one of your links addresses this nonsense: "_Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power_." -- *where and when have restrictions on flying the American Flag been proposed? *
Click to expand...

Yes. Correct. Displaying the American flag. Yes, several reports, especially in Florida, where a Vet had a flag pole in his front yard, flying the American flag, and was told it wasn't allowed. The court upheld the HOA rules, and forced him to take the flag down. But, There are NO laws that prevent anyone from flying the American flag.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Synthaholic said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide,
> 
> 
> 
> To Republicans?  Apparently.
> 
> Obama has been asking for a new AUMF for 6 months, and the Republican House has refused to do their Constitutional duty.
Click to expand...


100% stupid and liberal of course:

But he told C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" that it is even "more so for Democrats."

"There is a lot of Democratic opposition, which is pretty unusual," Cole said. "The president is essentially a war president without a war party.

"A lot of his folks will not vote for anything," Cole said. "There are others you have to so finely nuance the resolution, things like, we don't have an enduring ground mission — what does that mean?"

Cole was referring to perhaps the five most contentious words in the White House's draft AUMF. The Obama administration's measure would prohibit US forces from engaging in "enduring offensive ground combat operations" — but no one on Capitol Hill seems to know what that means.

Administration witnesses have yet to assuage Democrats, who believe the phrase is too open-ended, or Republicans, who view it as too limiting.


----------



## G.T.

Sonny Clark said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> "_Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?_" - false choice  "_What about The Bill of Rights?_" - what about it? It's a part of the Constitution
> 
> "_Have we altered the intent of the Constitution?_"  just what do you imagine the intent of the US Constitution was?  Hmm...
> 
> not one of your links addresses this nonsense: "_Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power_." -- *where and when have restrictions on flying the American Flag been proposed? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Correct. Displaying the American flag. Yes, several reports, especially in Florida, where a Vet had a flag pole in his front yard, flying the American flag, and was told it wasn't allowed. The court upheld the HOA rules, and forced him to take the flag down. But, There are NO laws that prevent anyone from flying the American flag.
Click to expand...

HOA rules are agreed to before the house is purchased. He volunteered to subject himself to a set of rules dum dum that has nothing to do with our freedoms in this country quite freaking obviously


----------



## Dante

Sonny Clark G.T.


G.T. said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny no law prevents the flying of the american flag.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> say what I'm thinking ain't so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where he got that from, I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the f*** do you restrict something if not by law? Say because I said so? Through threw thru
Click to expand...

actually Sonny-boy wrote "_Considerations have been given to...restrictive displaying of the American flag"  _

Now, in reality he never even went so far as to imply there were laws restricting flying the flag. He stated people had tried to. A distinction with a huge distinction

you lose

now

stfu and apologize


----------



## G.T.

Dante said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny no law prevents the flying of the american flag.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> say what I'm thinking ain't so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where he got that from, I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the f*** do you restrict something if not by law? Say because I said so? Through threw thru
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually Sonny-boy wrote "_Considerations have been given to...restrictive displaying of the American flag"  _
> 
> Now, in reality he never even went so far as to imply there were laws restricting flying the flag. He stated people had tried to. A distinction with a huge distinction
> 
> you lose
> 
> now
> 
> stfu and apologize
Click to expand...

Go to bed Dunta nobody likes you


----------



## Sonny Clark

Marine Veteran Forced to Remove American Flag From Yard Because of Code Violation Video TheBlaze.com

South Carolina Teen Forced To Remove American Flag From The Back Of His Truck Outrage Ensues

College Student Forced to Remove American Flag from Balcony Could Offend Foreign People - Breitbart

Local dealership forced to remove American flag banners or pay county code violation fine - wptv.com

Apartment complex orders resident to remove threatening American flag - Local 12 WKRC-TV Cincinnati


----------



## Sonny Clark

G.T. said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny no law prevents the flying of the american flag.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> say what I'm thinking ain't so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where he got that from, I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the f*** do you restrict something if not by law? Say because I said so? Through threw thru
Click to expand...

Look at the links that I just posted and it'll explain exactly what I meant. I just posted 5 or 6 links to explain what I meant. Please read the stories and you'll see what I'm talking about.


----------



## Dante

Sonny Clark said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> "_Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?_" - false choice  "_What about The Bill of Rights?_" - what about it? It's a part of the Constitution
> 
> "_Have we altered the intent of the Constitution?_"  just what do you imagine the intent of the US Constitution was?  Hmm...
> 
> not one of your links addresses this nonsense: "_Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power_." -- *where and when have restrictions on flying the American Flag been proposed? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Correct. Displaying the American flag. Yes, several reports, especially in Florida, where a Vet had a flag pole in his front yard, flying the American flag, and was told it wasn't allowed. The court upheld the HOA rules, and forced him to take the flag down. But, There are NO laws that prevent anyone from flying the American flag.
Click to expand...


Property rights. HOA rules are about property rights. Whether the guy is a veteran or not is irrelevant. I wonder if he had to take down the pole.


----------



## G.T.

Sonny Clark said:


> Marine Veteran Forced to Remove American Flag From Yard Because of Code Violation Video TheBlaze.com
> 
> South Carolina Teen Forced To Remove American Flag From The Back Of His Truck Outrage Ensues
> 
> College Student Forced to Remove American Flag from Balcony Could Offend Foreign People - Breitbart
> 
> Local dealership forced to remove American flag banners or pay county code violation fine - wptv.com
> 
> Apartment complex orders resident to remove threatening American flag - Local 12 WKRC-TV Cincinnati


None of which have anything to do with the Constitution or the government upholding it or not. These are all restricted cases Plus you forget there are 320 million with a capital m people in this country s*** you can find 10 examples of anything with that many people running around get a grip


----------



## Sonny Clark

Dante said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> "_Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?_" - false choice  "_What about The Bill of Rights?_" - what about it? It's a part of the Constitution
> 
> "_Have we altered the intent of the Constitution?_"  just what do you imagine the intent of the US Constitution was?  Hmm...
> 
> not one of your links addresses this nonsense: "_Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power_." -- *where and when have restrictions on flying the American Flag been proposed? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Correct. Displaying the American flag. Yes, several reports, especially in Florida, where a Vet had a flag pole in his front yard, flying the American flag, and was told it wasn't allowed. The court upheld the HOA rules, and forced him to take the flag down. But, There are NO laws that prevent anyone from flying the American flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Property rights. HOA rules are about property rights. Whether the guy is a veteran or not is irrelevant. I wonder if he had to take down the pole.
Click to expand...

Regardless, there are restrictions on flying the American Flag in this country. I just posted several examples. Please read them.


----------



## Sonny Clark

G.T. said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marine Veteran Forced to Remove American Flag From Yard Because of Code Violation Video TheBlaze.com
> 
> South Carolina Teen Forced To Remove American Flag From The Back Of His Truck Outrage Ensues
> 
> College Student Forced to Remove American Flag from Balcony Could Offend Foreign People - Breitbart
> 
> Local dealership forced to remove American flag banners or pay county code violation fine - wptv.com
> 
> Apartment complex orders resident to remove threatening American flag - Local 12 WKRC-TV Cincinnati
> 
> 
> 
> None of which have anything to do with the Constitution or the government upholding it or not. These are all restricted cases Plus you forget there are 320 million with a capital m people in this country s*** you can find 10 examples of anything with that many people running around get a grip
Click to expand...

Does the Constitution RESTRICT the displaying of our national flag?


----------



## Sonny Clark

Dante said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> "_Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?_" - false choice  "_What about The Bill of Rights?_" - what about it? It's a part of the Constitution
> 
> "_Have we altered the intent of the Constitution?_"  just what do you imagine the intent of the US Constitution was?  Hmm...
> 
> not one of your links addresses this nonsense: "_Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power_." -- *where and when have restrictions on flying the American Flag been proposed? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Correct. Displaying the American flag. Yes, several reports, especially in Florida, where a Vet had a flag pole in his front yard, flying the American flag, and was told it wasn't allowed. The court upheld the HOA rules, and forced him to take the flag down. But, There are NO laws that prevent anyone from flying the American flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Property rights. HOA rules are about property rights. Whether the guy is a veteran or not is irrelevant. I wonder if he had to take down the pole.
Click to expand...

Is a truck restricted under an HOA? Read all of the stories please.


----------



## G.T.

Sonny Clark said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marine Veteran Forced to Remove American Flag From Yard Because of Code Violation Video TheBlaze.com
> 
> South Carolina Teen Forced To Remove American Flag From The Back Of His Truck Outrage Ensues
> 
> College Student Forced to Remove American Flag from Balcony Could Offend Foreign People - Breitbart
> 
> Local dealership forced to remove American flag banners or pay county code violation fine - wptv.com
> 
> Apartment complex orders resident to remove threatening American flag - Local 12 WKRC-TV Cincinnati
> 
> 
> 
> None of which have anything to do with the Constitution or the government upholding it or not. These are all restricted cases Plus you forget there are 320 million with a capital m people in this country s*** you can find 10 examples of anything with that many people running around get a grip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the Constitution RESTRICT the displaying of our national flag?
Click to expand...

Of course it does. You can sign a contract, volunteering yourself to rules which do restrict it, therefore you are subject to contract law and said contract supersedes you're right to fly the flag. Rights are not these end all be all doesn't matter the situation things. You can't scream fire in a theater. You can't breach a contract you signed well not coerced.


----------



## Dante

come on GT   apologize to sonny.


----------



## Sonny Clark

G.T. said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny no law prevents the flying of the american flag.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> say what I'm thinking ain't so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where he got that from, I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the f*** do you restrict something if not by law? Say because I said so? Through threw thru
Click to expand...

There is NO law, in the Constitution, or elsewhere, that restricts the flying of our national flag.


----------



## Sonny Clark

G.T. said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marine Veteran Forced to Remove American Flag From Yard Because of Code Violation Video TheBlaze.com
> 
> South Carolina Teen Forced To Remove American Flag From The Back Of His Truck Outrage Ensues
> 
> College Student Forced to Remove American Flag from Balcony Could Offend Foreign People - Breitbart
> 
> Local dealership forced to remove American flag banners or pay county code violation fine - wptv.com
> 
> Apartment complex orders resident to remove threatening American flag - Local 12 WKRC-TV Cincinnati
> 
> 
> 
> None of which have anything to do with the Constitution or the government upholding it or not. These are all restricted cases Plus you forget there are 320 million with a capital m people in this country s*** you can find 10 examples of anything with that many people running around get a grip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the Constitution RESTRICT the displaying of our national flag?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. You can sign a contract, volunteering yourself to rules which do restrict it, therefore you are subject to contract law and said contract supersedes you're right to fly the flag. Rights are not these end all be all doesn't matter the situation things. You can't scream fire in a theater. You can't breach a contract you signed well not coerced.
Click to expand...

In a pickup truck? What about the story where Muslims were offended? Did you read all of the stories?


----------



## G.T.

The typos were caused by talk to text. Hopefully the point came across


----------



## Dante

Sonny Clark said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> "_Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?_" - false choice  "_What about The Bill of Rights?_" - what about it? It's a part of the Constitution
> 
> "_Have we altered the intent of the Constitution?_"  just what do you imagine the intent of the US Constitution was?  Hmm...
> 
> not one of your links addresses this nonsense: "_Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power_." -- *where and when have restrictions on flying the American Flag been proposed? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Correct. Displaying the American flag. Yes, several reports, especially in Florida, where a Vet had a flag pole in his front yard, flying the American flag, and was told it wasn't allowed. The court upheld the HOA rules, and forced him to take the flag down. But, There are NO laws that prevent anyone from flying the American flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Property rights. HOA rules are about property rights. Whether the guy is a veteran or not is irrelevant. I wonder if he had to take down the pole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is a truck restricted under an HOA? Read all of the stories please.
Click to expand...


I'd rather read what the lawyers and the courts have said. Articles and opinion pieces are shit


----------



## G.T.

Sonny Clark said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny no law prevents the flying of the american flag.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> say what I'm thinking ain't so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where he got that from, I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the f*** do you restrict something if not by law? Say because I said so? Through threw thru
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NO law, in the Constitution, or elsewhere, that restricts the flying of our national flag.
Click to expand...

Yes there is. 

Its not explicit but its there.

Can you fly it on your neighbors property without their consent?

No.

Thats a restriction.

Can you fly it in a privately owned development you volunteered to be a part of?

No.

Theres a restriction.


----------



## Sonny Clark

Dante said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?
> 
> Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics
> 
> Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation  --  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
> The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.
> 
> 
> Your Thoughts ?
> 
> 
> 
> "_Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles?_" - false choice  "_What about The Bill of Rights?_" - what about it? It's a part of the Constitution
> 
> "_Have we altered the intent of the Constitution?_"  just what do you imagine the intent of the US Constitution was?  Hmm...
> 
> not one of your links addresses this nonsense: "_Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power_." -- *where and when have restrictions on flying the American Flag been proposed? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Correct. Displaying the American flag. Yes, several reports, especially in Florida, where a Vet had a flag pole in his front yard, flying the American flag, and was told it wasn't allowed. The court upheld the HOA rules, and forced him to take the flag down. But, There are NO laws that prevent anyone from flying the American flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Property rights. HOA rules are about property rights. Whether the guy is a veteran or not is irrelevant. I wonder if he had to take down the pole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is a truck restricted under an HOA? Read all of the stories please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd rather read what the lawyers and the courts have said. Articles and opinion pieces are shit
Click to expand...

Have U.S. citizens been forced to remove the American flag?


----------



## G.T.

Sonny Clark said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marine Veteran Forced to Remove American Flag From Yard Because of Code Violation Video TheBlaze.com
> 
> South Carolina Teen Forced To Remove American Flag From The Back Of His Truck Outrage Ensues
> 
> College Student Forced to Remove American Flag from Balcony Could Offend Foreign People - Breitbart
> 
> Local dealership forced to remove American flag banners or pay county code violation fine - wptv.com
> 
> Apartment complex orders resident to remove threatening American flag - Local 12 WKRC-TV Cincinnati
> 
> 
> 
> None of which have anything to do with the Constitution or the government upholding it or not. These are all restricted cases Plus you forget there are 320 million with a capital m people in this country s*** you can find 10 examples of anything with that many people running around get a grip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the Constitution RESTRICT the displaying of our national flag?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. You can sign a contract, volunteering yourself to rules which do restrict it, therefore you are subject to contract law and said contract supersedes you're right to fly the flag. Rights are not these end all be all doesn't matter the situation things. You can't scream fire in a theater. You can't breach a contract you signed well not coerced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a pickup truck? What about the story where Muslims were offended? Did you read all of the stories?
Click to expand...

Isolated cases do not an erosion of the constitution make. 

320million people. 

Please find at least 500, 000 cases, then we still might not even be able to call it a MINOR trend.

Do you know how to comprehend the math and its implications? 320000000


----------



## Sonny Clark

G.T. said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny no law prevents the flying of the american flag.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> say what I'm thinking ain't so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where he got that from, I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the f*** do you restrict something if not by law? Say because I said so? Through threw thru
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NO law, in the Constitution, or elsewhere, that restricts the flying of our national flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes there is.
> 
> Its not explicit but its there.
> 
> Can you fly it on your neighbors property without their consent?
> 
> No.
> 
> Thats a restriction.
> 
> Can you fly it in a privately owned development you volunteered to be a part of?
> 
> No.
> 
> Theres a restriction.
Click to expand...

Is that your interpretation of the Constitution? Or, is in actually in the Constitution?


----------



## Sonny Clark

G.T. said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marine Veteran Forced to Remove American Flag From Yard Because of Code Violation Video TheBlaze.com
> 
> South Carolina Teen Forced To Remove American Flag From The Back Of His Truck Outrage Ensues
> 
> College Student Forced to Remove American Flag from Balcony Could Offend Foreign People - Breitbart
> 
> Local dealership forced to remove American flag banners or pay county code violation fine - wptv.com
> 
> Apartment complex orders resident to remove threatening American flag - Local 12 WKRC-TV Cincinnati
> 
> 
> 
> None of which have anything to do with the Constitution or the government upholding it or not. These are all restricted cases Plus you forget there are 320 million with a capital m people in this country s*** you can find 10 examples of anything with that many people running around get a grip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the Constitution RESTRICT the displaying of our national flag?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. You can sign a contract, volunteering yourself to rules which do restrict it, therefore you are subject to contract law and said contract supersedes you're right to fly the flag. Rights are not these end all be all doesn't matter the situation things. You can't scream fire in a theater. You can't breach a contract you signed well not coerced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a pickup truck? What about the story where Muslims were offended? Did you read all of the stories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isolated cases do not an erosion of the constitution make.
> 
> 320million people.
> 
> Please find at least 500, 000 cases, then we still might not even be able to call it a MINOR trend.
> 
> Do you know how to comprehend the math and its implications? 320000000
Click to expand...

You're the only one that has mentioned numbers. I have never mentioned numbers. I gave examples to support my claim. It really doesn't matter if it's one or a 1,000,000. The point is that we can carry our national flag into battle, yet we can't display it in our front yard.


----------



## Sonny Clark

G.T. said:


> The typos were caused by talk to text. Hopefully the point came across


What typos?


----------



## G.T.

Sonny Clark said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of which have anything to do with the Constitution or the government upholding it or not. These are all restricted cases Plus you forget there are 320 million with a capital m people in this country s*** you can find 10 examples of anything with that many people running around get a grip
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution RESTRICT the displaying of our national flag?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. You can sign a contract, volunteering yourself to rules which do restrict it, therefore you are subject to contract law and said contract supersedes you're right to fly the flag. Rights are not these end all be all doesn't matter the situation things. You can't scream fire in a theater. You can't breach a contract you signed well not coerced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a pickup truck? What about the story where Muslims were offended? Did you read all of the stories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isolated cases do not an erosion of the constitution make.
> 
> 320million people.
> 
> Please find at least 500, 000 cases, then we still might not even be able to call it a MINOR trend.
> 
> Do you know how to comprehend the math and its implications? 320000000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the only one that has mentioned numbers. I have never mentioned numbers. I gave examples to support my claim. It really doesn't matter if it's one or a 1,000,000. The point is that we can carry our national flag into battle, yet we can't display it in our front yard.
Click to expand...

Umm...yes we can. 

If 0.0000000004% cant do it

It doesnt mean "we cant."

It means the media is in your head, is what it means.


----------



## Dante

G.T. said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO law, in the Constitution, or elsewhere, that restricts the flying of our national flag.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is.
> 
> Its not explicit but its there.
> 
> Can you fly it on your neighbors property without their consent?
> 
> No.
> 
> Thats a restriction.
> 
> Can you fly it in a privately owned development you volunteered to be a part of?
> 
> No.
> 
> Theres a restriction.
Click to expand...


This is imbecility on a scale that I would have previously thought unimaginable.


----------



## G.T.

Dante said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO law, in the Constitution, or elsewhere, that restricts the flying of our national flag.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is.
> 
> Its not explicit but its there.
> 
> Can you fly it on your neighbors property without their consent?
> 
> No.
> 
> Thats a restriction.
> 
> Can you fly it in a privately owned development you volunteered to be a part of?
> 
> No.
> 
> Theres a restriction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is imbecility on a scale that I would have previously thought unimaginable.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares what your limited water carrier on your neck interprets their posts as dude. Save it.


----------



## Dante

There is NO law, in the Constitution, or elsewhere, that restricts the flying of our national flag. No law implied or otherwise. GT has used the term 'explicit' where 'implied' is more appropriate. GT has crossed a line from dementia into insanity


----------



## Dante




----------



## G.T.

Dante said:


> There is NO law, in the Constitution, or elsewhere, that restricts the flying of our national flag. No law implied or otherwise. GT has used the term 'explicit' where 'implied' is more appropriate. GT has crossed a line from dementia into insanity


Ok then go fly a flag on your neighbor's lawn wothout their consent genius. 

You cant. 

By law.


----------



## Sonny Clark

G.T. said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution RESTRICT the displaying of our national flag?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. You can sign a contract, volunteering yourself to rules which do restrict it, therefore you are subject to contract law and said contract supersedes you're right to fly the flag. Rights are not these end all be all doesn't matter the situation things. You can't scream fire in a theater. You can't breach a contract you signed well not coerced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a pickup truck? What about the story where Muslims were offended? Did you read all of the stories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isolated cases do not an erosion of the constitution make.
> 
> 320million people.
> 
> Please find at least 500, 000 cases, then we still might not even be able to call it a MINOR trend.
> 
> Do you know how to comprehend the math and its implications? 320000000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the only one that has mentioned numbers. I have never mentioned numbers. I gave examples to support my claim. It really doesn't matter if it's one or a 1,000,000. The point is that we can carry our national flag into battle, yet we can't display it in our front yard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...yes we can.
> 
> If 0.0000000004% cant do it
> 
> It doesnt mean "we cant."
> 
> It means the media is in your head, is what it means.
Click to expand...

WRONG -- The media is in no way in my head, not by a long shot. What it means is, there are restriction on flying our national flag, as evident by the few examples that I gave. There are other examples that I've read about over the years also. You can fly the flag as long as it doesn't go against someone's rules, or as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Obviously by one of the articles, it offended Muslims.


----------



## G.T.

Sonny Clark said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. You can sign a contract, volunteering yourself to rules which do restrict it, therefore you are subject to contract law and said contract supersedes you're right to fly the flag. Rights are not these end all be all doesn't matter the situation things. You can't scream fire in a theater. You can't breach a contract you signed well not coerced.
> 
> 
> 
> In a pickup truck? What about the story where Muslims were offended? Did you read all of the stories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isolated cases do not an erosion of the constitution make.
> 
> 320million people.
> 
> Please find at least 500, 000 cases, then we still might not even be able to call it a MINOR trend.
> 
> Do you know how to comprehend the math and its implications? 320000000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the only one that has mentioned numbers. I have never mentioned numbers. I gave examples to support my claim. It really doesn't matter if it's one or a 1,000,000. The point is that we can carry our national flag into battle, yet we can't display it in our front yard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...yes we can.
> 
> If 0.0000000004% cant do it
> 
> It doesnt mean "we cant."
> 
> It means the media is in your head, is what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG -- The media is in no way in my head, not by a long shot. What it means is, there are restriction on flying our national flag, as evident by the few examples that I gave. There are other examples that I've read about over the years also. You can fly the flag as long as it doesn't go against someone's rules, or as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Obviously by one of the articles, it offended Muslims.
Click to expand...

So in other words.....10 examples out of 320, 000, 000 makes a trend in your opinion. 

You told ed you were smart.


----------



## CremeBrulee

I think the answer to ALL the questions you posed in the OP is yes.  I would say that is what makes it great.  The people behind it realized it was fine for the time it was written but things could change.  That's why it is able to be interpreted, amended, altered; to better suit the people and times of those changes, with the original ideas as guiding principles.  Maybe that sounds silly but I would like to think of the framers as somewhat sensible people that recognized they were not infallible.


----------



## Sonny Clark

G.T. said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a pickup truck? What about the story where Muslims were offended? Did you read all of the stories?
> 
> 
> 
> Isolated cases do not an erosion of the constitution make.
> 
> 320million people.
> 
> Please find at least 500, 000 cases, then we still might not even be able to call it a MINOR trend.
> 
> Do you know how to comprehend the math and its implications? 320000000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the only one that has mentioned numbers. I have never mentioned numbers. I gave examples to support my claim. It really doesn't matter if it's one or a 1,000,000. The point is that we can carry our national flag into battle, yet we can't display it in our front yard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...yes we can.
> 
> If 0.0000000004% cant do it
> 
> It doesnt mean "we cant."
> 
> It means the media is in your head, is what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG -- The media is in no way in my head, not by a long shot. What it means is, there are restriction on flying our national flag, as evident by the few examples that I gave. There are other examples that I've read about over the years also. You can fly the flag as long as it doesn't go against someone's rules, or as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Obviously by one of the articles, it offended Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words.....10 examples out of 320, 000, 000 makes a trend in your opinion.
> 
> You told ed you were smart.
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone saying that it was a "trend". Did you see where someone had said that it was a "trend"? If so, please direct me to it. Thanks.


----------



## Sonny Clark

CremeBrulee said:


> I think the answer to ALL the questions you posed in the OP is yes.  I would say that is what makes it great.  The people behind it realized it was fine for the time it was written but things could change.  That's why it is able to be interpreted, amended, altered; to better suit the people and times of those changes, with the original ideas as guiding principles.  Maybe that sounds silly but I would like to think of the framers as somewhat sensible people that recognized they were not infallible.


Yes, I agree. It should be amended. On many issues.


----------



## Dante

G.T. said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO law, in the Constitution, or elsewhere, that restricts the flying of our national flag. No law implied or otherwise. GT has used the term 'explicit' where 'implied' is more appropriate. GT has crossed a line from dementia into insanity
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then go fly a flag on your neighbor's lawn wothout their consent genius.
> 
> You cant.
> 
> By law.
Click to expand...


IMBECILE!!!

That would be a restriction on flying the flag. That would be violating a private property right.

What is interesting is that you do not know, recognize, or consider the difference. It's anarchistic or worse -- stupidity


----------



## G.T.

Sonny Clark said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isolated cases do not an erosion of the constitution make.
> 
> 320million people.
> 
> Please find at least 500, 000 cases, then we still might not even be able to call it a MINOR trend.
> 
> Do you know how to comprehend the math and its implications? 320000000
> 
> 
> 
> You're the only one that has mentioned numbers. I have never mentioned numbers. I gave examples to support my claim. It really doesn't matter if it's one or a 1,000,000. The point is that we can carry our national flag into battle, yet we can't display it in our front yard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...yes we can.
> 
> If 0.0000000004% cant do it
> 
> It doesnt mean "we cant."
> 
> It means the media is in your head, is what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG -- The media is in no way in my head, not by a long shot. What it means is, there are restriction on flying our national flag, as evident by the few examples that I gave. There are other examples that I've read about over the years also. You can fly the flag as long as it doesn't go against someone's rules, or as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Obviously by one of the articles, it offended Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words.....10 examples out of 320, 000, 000 makes a trend in your opinion.
> 
> You told ed you were smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall anyone saying that it was a "trend". Did you see where someone had said that it was a "trend"? If so, please direct me to it. Thanks.
Click to expand...

If its not a trend, ipso facto we have no problem here. Just isolated incidents.


----------



## Sonny Clark

Go ask one of our Vets that spilt his/her blood in combat defending the flag, if it's Ok to fly the American flag in their front yard.


----------



## Sonny Clark

G.T. said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the only one that has mentioned numbers. I have never mentioned numbers. I gave examples to support my claim. It really doesn't matter if it's one or a 1,000,000. The point is that we can carry our national flag into battle, yet we can't display it in our front yard.
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...yes we can.
> 
> If 0.0000000004% cant do it
> 
> It doesnt mean "we cant."
> 
> It means the media is in your head, is what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG -- The media is in no way in my head, not by a long shot. What it means is, there are restriction on flying our national flag, as evident by the few examples that I gave. There are other examples that I've read about over the years also. You can fly the flag as long as it doesn't go against someone's rules, or as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Obviously by one of the articles, it offended Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words.....10 examples out of 320, 000, 000 makes a trend in your opinion.
> 
> You told ed you were smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall anyone saying that it was a "trend". Did you see where someone had said that it was a "trend"? If so, please direct me to it. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If its not a trend, ipso facto we have no problem here. Just isolated incidents.
Click to expand...

No one ever said there was a "TREND". Did you see where anyone said that it was a "TREND"? If so, please direct me to the post. Thanks.


----------



## Dante

Sonny Clark said:


> Go ask one of our Vets that spilt his/her blood in combat defending the flag, if it's Ok to fly the American flag in their front yard.


Many would defend property rights over the bullshit positioning of patriotism


----------



## Sonny Clark

Dante said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go ask one of our Vets that spilt his/her blood in combat defending the flag, if it's Ok to fly the American flag in their front yard.
> 
> 
> 
> Many would defend property rights over the bullshit positioning of patriotism
Click to expand...

And many would likewise defend their right to fly the national flag.


----------



## G.T.

Sonny Clark said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...yes we can.
> 
> If 0.0000000004% cant do it
> 
> It doesnt mean "we cant."
> 
> It means the media is in your head, is what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG -- The media is in no way in my head, not by a long shot. What it means is, there are restriction on flying our national flag, as evident by the few examples that I gave. There are other examples that I've read about over the years also. You can fly the flag as long as it doesn't go against someone's rules, or as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Obviously by one of the articles, it offended Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words.....10 examples out of 320, 000, 000 makes a trend in your opinion.
> 
> You told ed you were smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall anyone saying that it was a "trend". Did you see where someone had said that it was a "trend"? If so, please direct me to it. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If its not a trend, ipso facto we have no problem here. Just isolated incidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one ever said there was a "TREND". Did you see where anyone said that it was a "TREND"? If so, please direct me to the post. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Its illogical to make these "whats jappening to our country" threads and then support them with things that arent even trends. 

I dont see the disconnect there.


----------



## Sonny Clark

G.T. said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG -- The media is in no way in my head, not by a long shot. What it means is, there are restriction on flying our national flag, as evident by the few examples that I gave. There are other examples that I've read about over the years also. You can fly the flag as long as it doesn't go against someone's rules, or as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Obviously by one of the articles, it offended Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words.....10 examples out of 320, 000, 000 makes a trend in your opinion.
> 
> You told ed you were smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall anyone saying that it was a "trend". Did you see where someone had said that it was a "trend"? If so, please direct me to it. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If its not a trend, ipso facto we have no problem here. Just isolated incidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one ever said there was a "TREND". Did you see where anyone said that it was a "TREND"? If so, please direct me to the post. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its illogical to make these "whats jappening to our country" threads and then support them with things that arent even trends.
> 
> I dont see the disconnect there.
Click to expand...

To each his own. I'm sure there are a million different opinions on the matter.


----------



## CremeBrulee

Sonny Clark said:


> Marine Veteran Forced to Remove American Flag From Yard Because of Code Violation Video TheBlaze.com
> 
> South Carolina Teen Forced To Remove American Flag From The Back Of His Truck Outrage Ensues
> 
> College Student Forced to Remove American Flag from Balcony Could Offend Foreign People - Breitbart
> 
> Local dealership forced to remove American flag banners or pay county code violation fine - wptv.com
> 
> Apartment complex orders resident to remove threatening American flag - Local 12 WKRC-TV Cincinnati


I think most of these could be and should be prohibited for reasons (HOA, code, safety) other than what was initially given for their removal.  Almost all of the people were initially told to take them down because of complaints that the flags were offensive. This is America and that isn't a legitimate excuse.  If I want to fly a gay pride, American, Confederate or even ISIS flag and it doesn't violate any rules so be it.


----------



## regent

Sonny Clark said:


> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the answer to ALL the questions you posed in the OP is yes.  I would say that is what makes it great.  The people behind it realized it was fine for the time it was written but things could change.  That's why it is able to be interpreted, amended, altered; to better suit the people and times of those changes, with the original ideas as guiding principles.  Maybe that sounds silly but I would like to think of the framers as somewhat sensible people that recognized they were not infallible.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree. It should be amended. On many issues.
Click to expand...

How many amendments would it take to cover all the thousands of changes that have taken place in running our government to date? Most changes and adjustments occur quietly and with little fan fare, many of them as necessary and proper.


----------



## Sonny Clark

regent said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the answer to ALL the questions you posed in the OP is yes.  I would say that is what makes it great.  The people behind it realized it was fine for the time it was written but things could change.  That's why it is able to be interpreted, amended, altered; to better suit the people and times of those changes, with the original ideas as guiding principles.  Maybe that sounds silly but I would like to think of the framers as somewhat sensible people that recognized they were not infallible.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree. It should be amended. On many issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many amendments would it take to cover all the thousands of changes that have taken place in running our government to date? Most changes and adjustments occur quietly and with little fan fare, many of them as necessary and proper.
Click to expand...

It would take many changes.


----------

