Choose: Progressives or the Constitution

[Sallow]

Read the Constitution.

Your opinion is not in the Constitution. I'll take your mute-ness on this, another in your long list of dodges,

to mean that you do think there is, but you can't bear to say so because you'd have to concede that it's there despite being non-explicit.

That brings down your argument that there are no rights in the Constitution unless the Constitution states their existence explicitly.

Gee.....I suggest you "read" and you act like a blonde would act at the thought of taking a shower at the Bates Motel.

How typical of a Liberal....waiting for the bumper-sticker to tell you what to think.

Take your own advice.

And stop with the cut and paste.

Actually read it. Take a few moments. Then read it again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your opinion is not in the Constitution. I'll take your mute-ness on this, another in your long list of dodges,

to mean that you do think there is, but you can't bear to say so because you'd have to concede that it's there despite being non-explicit.

That brings down your argument that there are no rights in the Constitution unless the Constitution states their existence explicitly.

Gee.....I suggest you "read" and you act like a blonde would act at the thought of taking a shower at the Bates Motel.

How typical of a Liberal....waiting for the bumper-sticker to tell you what to think.

Take your own advice.

And stop with the cut and paste.

Actually read it. Take a few moments. Then read it again.

If I were you, I wouldn't count on seeing the day when you decide how I post.

 

[tjvh]

True.

That's why you folks continue to use it like toilet paper.

That's your entire mantra, reverse the truth and hope it sticks.

Reverse what truth?

Here's the truth.

Conservative Constitution:
Us American folks got us the right to have us some shootin' irons so we can shoot government officials in the face, blow up buildings and shoot up schools when ever we be unhappy wit' da commies.

That's about it.

The fact that that is the way you actually see it IS about it. You really need to seek professional help.

 

[OKTexas]

The Constitution is one of the most PROGRESSIVE documents ever created.

Progress eventually tramples over every barrier Conservatism throws in its path.

And you're as dunce.

I realize that one of your meager sources of gratification in your otherwise drab and wretched life is to engage in mutual insulturbation with posters on message boards,

but please, try to leave me out of it. There are plenty here who swing that way. Molest them.

If you want to prove that the Constitution at the time of its framing was a conservative, not a progressive document, by all means give it a try.

You can start by showing us how the Constitution was more conservative than the Articles of Confederation.

I think you're missing the whole point of the OP, labels don't matter, the fact that the courts and not the intended amendment process are being use to alter the intent and application of the document. That is not what the founders had in mind.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And you're as dunce.

I realize that one of your meager sources of gratification in your otherwise drab and wretched life is to engage in mutual insulturbation with posters on message boards,

but please, try to leave me out of it. There are plenty here who swing that way. Molest them.

If you want to prove that the Constitution at the time of its framing was a conservative, not a progressive document, by all means give it a try.

You can start by showing us how the Constitution was more conservative than the Articles of Confederation.

I think you're missing the whole point of the OP, labels don't matter, the fact that the courts and not the intended amendment process are being use to alter the intent and application of the document. That is not what the founders had in mind.

The founders must have had it in mind or they would not have included a Ninth Amendment,

which extends to the Court broad latitude in discerning, defining, establishing the existence of non-enumerated rights.

Additionally, the concept of implied powers was clearly understood by the Founders and clearly they expected such implications to be utilized.

 

[OKTexas]

I realize that one of your meager sources of gratification in your otherwise drab and wretched life is to engage in mutual insulturbation with posters on message boards,

but please, try to leave me out of it. There are plenty here who swing that way. Molest them.

If you want to prove that the Constitution at the time of its framing was a conservative, not a progressive document, by all means give it a try.

You can start by showing us how the Constitution was more conservative than the Articles of Confederation.

I think you're missing the whole point of the OP, labels don't matter, the fact that the courts and not the intended amendment process are being use to alter the intent and application of the document. That is not what the founders had in mind.

The founders must have had it in mind or they would not have included a Ninth Amendment,

which extends to the Court broad latitude in discerning, defining, establishing the existence of non-enumerated rights.

Additionally, the concept of implied powers was clearly understood by the Founders and clearly they expected such implications to be utilized.

The ninth only states other rights exist, they didn't give the courts or the government the power to define them.

Also why does the 10th Amendment basically state that there are no implied powers, only enumerated powers? The state insisted on the all the bill of rights to further define the shackles on the feds not to give them more latitude.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I realize that one of your meager sources of gratification in your otherwise drab and wretched life is to engage in mutual insulturbation with posters on message boards,

but please, try to leave me out of it. There are plenty here who swing that way. Molest them.

If you want to prove that the Constitution at the time of its framing was a conservative, not a progressive document, by all means give it a try.

You can start by showing us how the Constitution was more conservative than the Articles of Confederation.

I think you're missing the whole point of the OP, labels don't matter, the fact that the courts and not the intended amendment process are being use to alter the intent and application of the document. That is not what the founders had in mind.

The founders must have had it in mind or they would not have included a Ninth Amendment,

which extends to the Court broad latitude in discerning, defining, establishing the existence of non-enumerated rights.

Additionally, the concept of implied powers was clearly understood by the Founders and clearly they expected such implications to be utilized.

Horsefeathers.

A rationalization along the lines of '...bankers must have clearly understood that some would come in and take money that they felt they needed, or the bank wouldn't keep so much money there."


The Founders wrote words....words had, and have meaning.

"1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

a. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
“Originalism,” Steven Calabresi,


The Founders allowed for any missing elements only- only- by the method given in Article V.


Any other method is theft of the liberty of the American people.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The Constitution is one of the most PROGRESSIVE documents ever created.

Progress eventually tramples over every barrier Conservatism throws in its path.

""I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But 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 discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."""
Thomas Jefferson, 1816

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution is one of the most PROGRESSIVE documents ever created.

Progress eventually tramples over every barrier Conservatism throws in its path.

""I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But 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 discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."""
Thomas Jefferson, 1816

So...you wouldn't mind playing poker with a guy who changed the rules whenever he wished?

Good thinkin'....

 

[Antares]

Once again you show yourself to a moron.

Neo-classical and libertarian redefinition of the term

In the 20th century, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman,[9] as response to the social liberalism and Keynesianism, argued that government should be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. This return to the ideas of classical liberalism was called "neo-classical liberalism". Some use the term "classical liberalism" to refer to all liberalism before the 20th century, not to designate any particular set of political views, and therefore see all modern developments as being, by definition, not classical.[10]

In the United States primarily, libertarianism has been used as a substitute for the "neo-classical liberalism", however, some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term to describe their own beliefs, as well.[11][12][13][14]

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classic Liberalism is a term made up by Conservatives. It's a little like Compassionate Conservative without the hilarity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1. Progressives have a rather unique view of their heroes.

Actually, as a conservative, you have an all too common ignorance of progressives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think you're missing the whole point of the OP, labels don't matter, the fact that the courts and not the intended amendment process are being use to alter the intent and application of the document. That is not what the founders had in mind.

The founders must have had it in mind or they would not have included a Ninth Amendment,

which extends to the Court broad latitude in discerning, defining, establishing the existence of non-enumerated rights.

Additionally, the concept of implied powers was clearly understood by the Founders and clearly they expected such implications to be utilized.

Horsefeathers.

A rationalization along the lines of '...bankers must have clearly understood that some would come in and take money that they felt they needed, or the bank wouldn't keep so much money there."


The Founders wrote words....words had, and have meaning.

"1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

a. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
“Originalism,” Steven Calabresi,


The Founders allowed for any missing elements only- only- by the method given in Article V.


Any other method is theft of the liberty of the American people.

For the 'nth' time, what is the point of the Ninth Amendment if there are no unenumerated rights?

 

[Antares]

Then as a "Progressive" surely YOU can tell us where your belief system started....

1. Progressives have a rather unique view of their heroes.

Actually, as a conservative, you have an all too common ignorance of progressives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution surely is one hell of a pesky document for those who put ideology before Country.

Is that meant to explain why Political Chic was for the right of privacy before she was against it?

No it was meant to explain how the loony Liberal utopian dream keeps getting railroaded by the Constitution and conservative public opinion. It's why liberals remain so angry even after their Messiah Obama won a second term... Which of course was really Bush's fourth term.

Oh, I could have sworn that Obama's healthcare mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read the Constitution.

Your opinion is not in the Constitution. I'll take your mute-ness on this, another in your long list of dodges,

to mean that you do think there is, but you can't bear to say so because you'd have to concede that it's there despite being non-explicit.

That brings down your argument that there are no rights in the Constitution unless the Constitution states their existence explicitly.

Gee.....I suggest you "read" and you act like a blonde would act at the thought of taking a shower at the Bates Motel.

How typical of a Liberal....waiting for the bumper-sticker to tell you what to think.

I asked your opinion on whether or not the Constitution protects the right to property.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think you're missing the whole point of the OP, labels don't matter, the fact that the courts and not the intended amendment process are being use to alter the intent and application of the document. That is not what the founders had in mind.

The founders must have had it in mind or they would not have included a Ninth Amendment,

which extends to the Court broad latitude in discerning, defining, establishing the existence of non-enumerated rights.

Additionally, the concept of implied powers was clearly understood by the Founders and clearly they expected such implications to be utilized.

The ninth only states other rights exist, they didn't give the courts or the government the power to define them.

Also why does the 10th Amendment basically state that there are no implied powers, only enumerated powers? The state insisted on the all the bill of rights to further define the shackles on the feds not to give them more latitude.

So the rights to privacy and property don't exist?

So, again, the citizens of NY whose names were published because they owned gun licenses had no grounds to object to that on privacy rights claims,

because no such right exists??

Is that your position?

 

[NYcarbineer]

All we're really hearing here are conservative minority views about the Constitution that were minority, dissenting views of the Court over the years.

In other words, those views were given due process, and lost.

 

[Borillar]

1. Progressives have a rather unique view of their heroes.

“The mob characteristic most gustily exhibited by liberals is the tendency to worship and idolize their political leaders. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” explained that mobs can only grasp the “very simple and very exaggerated.” Their chosen images must be absolute and uncompromising… As Le Bon says, the “primitive” black-and-white emotions of a crowd slip easily into “infatuation for an individual.” Liberals worship so many political deities that they must refer to them by initials, just to save time- FDR, JFK, RFK, MLK, LBJ, and O.J. Ever hear a conservative get weepy about “RWR” or refer to something as hokey as “Camelot”? Passionate adoration are the primitive emotions of a mob, sentiments generally associated with women, children, and savages, according to Le Bon.”
Coulter, “Demonic.”

2.The Founders were men, not gods. “The framers of the Constitution combined the best political ideas from the past with what “The Federalist” called an improved science of politics: federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Doing so, they created a form of government which had, in the words of James Madison, ‘no model on the face of the earth.’
Larry P. Arnn, Hillsdale College.

3. Still, in the view of conservatives, the Founders were men- brilliant, -but still men. Not gods, not perfect beings, but men; we do not worship them. We are not like the Liberal mob! Therefore, we are capable of considering that the document that they produced to memorialize our nation, the Constitution, has flaws.





4. Here’s for-instance. Whether the original Constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of a person because the Founders felt slaves less than human, or because allowing as a full person would prove the South 40% more toward representation in government, and therefore prevent ever doing away with slavery…it was recognized as needing a change. And section 2 of the 14th amendment did just that.
Passed by Republicans, btw.

5. Then there was the time that the Progressives decided that big government was better than federalism, and it would benefit their intentions to wrest power away from the states. They went to work on Article one, section 3, and took selection of senators away from state legislatures. They passed the 17th amendment.

6. How about one that appears less important? Article1, section 4 names the first Monday in December as the start of Congress. Simple enough to change the date: see the 20th amendment, section 2.

7. Don’t like how the vice-president is chosen, in Article 2…no prob, amend it….12th amendment.

8. Hey…what if something happens to the President? Well…is was covered in Article 2, section 1…but we like a formal list better: so, 25th amendment.

9. Exactly what the courts can rule on (Article 3)…well, let’s add an 11th amendment with more specificity.





10. Let’s see….I count 10 instances where the original Constitution has been changed by the amendment process. Some by each side.
Doesn’t seem to be any argument that the “my bad” process set in place by the Founders in Article V, doesn’t work…
…..why, then, are so many important issues allowed to be entirely changed by judges and Justices?





11. ‘There is a school of thought that validates constitutional law based on the good it can do for people now. This idea questions how adherence to a 200-year-old can be defended as beneficial today. Pragmatism, the progressive doctine, as the basis of judicial decision-making, places its weight on the consequences of a judges decisions; advocates would be Justice Stephen Breyer, and Judge Richard Posner.
In short, this idea replaces the rule of law with the rule of judges.’
“Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” by Steven G. Calabresi

a. The original Constitution is the only instrument that the people have consented to be governed by.

b. Abortion is covered no where in the Constitution. Nor is the ‘right of privacy.” Judges make these up. They find ‘penumbras.’ They imagine.


13. Why not an amendment if they are important to our nation?

a. Abandoning originalism means abandoning the rationale which ‘Marbury v. Madison’ uses to justify judicial review. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government, and no judicial review.

b. Marshall wrote that the ‘principles’ of the Constitution ‘are deemed fundamental and permanent’ and, except for formal amendment, “unchangeable.”
See ‘Marbury v. Madison.





14. In fact, St. George Tucker’s treatise, the first learned commentary on the Constitution, published in 1802, describes exactly the rule of construction with respect to the enumerated powers, and the rights retained by the states and by the people.

The opinions of the Supreme Court should echo the theory of strict construction first presented in works like St. George Tucker's View of the Constitution and James Madison's Report on the Alien and Sedition Acts, and reflect this rule of interpretation: federal power must be narrowly construed in order to prevent undue interference with matters best left under state control. In the words of St. George Tucker, the Constitution "is to be construed strictly, in all cases where the antecedent rights of a state may be drawn in question.” Tucker, View of the Constitution, supra note 6, ed. app. at 151.

Either the Constitution has the force of law....or judicial decisions make the law....not both.



America is getting hosed by these corrupt and illegal decision. The legitimate method for change of the Constitution is the amendment process.
Throw the bums out!

Jeeze, you sure have some long winded, meandering posts!

1. OJ as a liberal hero? WTF? And I've seen conservatives get all "weepy" about Reagan. Heck, Boner gets weepy about practically anything.

2. Why does the right try to paint the founders as infallible deities then. they always want to go back to the founders' intent, as though they were incapable of mistakes.

3. Strawman argument that liberals "worship" at the alter of the founders whereas the wonderful enlightened conservatives don't.

4. You'd probably go back to slavery if you could.

5. I thought federalism was big government? I suppose this would be one way for the Repugs to take control of the senate through their gerrymandered congressional districts.

6 - 9. OK with me. who cares?

10. Because they are politicians in robes. That's why each side tries to stack the court in their favor.

11. Plenty of right wing activism to be found in the court too.
a. Governance today has little to do with consent. The rules were in place long before you were born. You break the rules, you pay the consequences.

b. Abortion and privacy fall under the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Skipped right over 12.

13. What? You think that we have to enumerate all of our rights? I thought the purpose of the constitution was to limit the rights of the Government, not the governed.

14. I agree. If you don't want privacy or abortion rights, then a Constitutional amendment prohibiting them should be made.

 

[tjvh]

Is that meant to explain why Political Chic was for the right of privacy before she was against it?

No it was meant to explain how the loony Liberal utopian dream keeps getting railroaded by the Constitution and conservative public opinion. It's why liberals remain so angry even after their Messiah Obama won a second term... Which of course was really Bush's fourth term.

Oh, I could have sworn that Obama's healthcare mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court.

It was... As a Tax.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No it was meant to explain how the loony Liberal utopian dream keeps getting railroaded by the Constitution and conservative public opinion. It's why liberals remain so angry even after their Messiah Obama won a second term... Which of course was really Bush's fourth term.

Oh, I could have sworn that Obama's healthcare mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court.

It was... As a Tax.

So what are 'we' complaining about, constitutionally?

The author of this thread once complained that Obamacare invaded our rights to privacy, and then turned around the other day and decided there is no constitutional right of privacy.