If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

market regulation as authorized by the Commerce Clause,

The Commerce Clause was not intended to authorize all regulation or communist regulation , just to promote free trade among the states . A child would know that, just not a liberal.

It is a treasonous lie to pretend the idiotic liberal case law trumps the Constitution. A justice takes an oath to defend the Republican Libertarian Constitution, not treasonous liberal case law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Commerce Clause was not intended to authorize all regulation or communist regulation , just to promote free trade among the states . A child would know that, just not a liberal.

It is a treasonous lie to pretend the idiotic liberal case law trumps the Constitution. A justice takes an oath to defend the Republican Libertarian Constitution, not treasonous liberal case law.

lol

And what criteria do you use to determine what case law is ‘liberal’ and what is not?

Just because you disagree with it in the context of your ignorance doesn’t make it ‘liberal' or wrong.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

lol

And what criteria do you use to determine what case law is ‘liberal’ and what is not?

Just because you disagree with it in the context of your ignorance doesn’t make it ‘liberal' or wrong.

too stupid. Liberals have included everything vaguely related, directly or indirectly, to commerce (Schecter Chicken) as subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause.

It was only intended to promote capitalist free trade, not liberal sociallism. Are you really too slow, as a brainwashed liberal, to grasp that?

 

[regent]

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Chief Justice Hughes

 

[Brutus]

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Chief Justice Hughes

"you can do anything you want around here as long as you have 5 votes"-treasonous liberal justice Thurgood Marshall

 

[code1211]

[
You are completely devoured by class envy.

You can't answer my arguments and so you are trying to attack the person making them. Pathetic.

I am not attacking you. I'm merely making an observation. Why is it important to you what someone else has as long as you have what you need?

If you envy those who have more than you and wish to take it from them, what is your motivation if not class envy?

 

[regent]

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is." Chief Justice Hughes

"you can do anything you want around here as long as you have 5 votes"-treasonous liberal justice Thurgood Marshall

Why do we tolerate treasonous justices on the Supreme Court? That should be against the law. So if the Court makes a five to four decision on the health care law does it mean one or more is a traitor? How do we identify a treasonous justice?

 

[code1211]

(this is from Code:
You hold up Bill Gates who rose from upper middle class to become the richest man in the WORLD as an example of no mobility between classes?

(This is from Dragon)
"No mobility between classes" -- again you are putting words in my mouth. Stop doing that, you dishonest fuck!

I said very clearly what I meant by the example of Gates and it wasn't that. Go back, try again, and this time DON'T FUCKING LIE.

From the post to which I referred:

"Not really, since I don't have to. I'm just pointing out that "equality of opportunity" is not a reality. People born into wealthy families have enormous advantages over people born into poor circumstances. They can go to the best schools, have networks of helpful, successful people, and have great jobs or financial resources available to help them succeed. Bill Gates could not have built the fortune he did without his own ability, but someone with twice his ability could not have done it without wealthy parents as Gates had, because they would never have had the chance."


I can't read this any other way.

I'm not trying to lie, I'm trying to find out why you believe what you believe when it's not supported by facts.

Bill Gates was the richest man in the world. That is an economic status unrelated to his upbringing. It happened to a capitalist. He rose from upper middle class to that lofty perch. It happened. It's real.

You are saying that it could not happen with a poor man, but it happens all the time.

Steve Jobs is a man who rose from solid middle class. His parents put him up for adoption and he was adopted by a machinist and working mother. It's pretty obvious that he became successful beyond your vision of American societal limitations.

When the facts undermine your theory, you really need to examine if reality or your beliefs are suspect.

 

[code1211]

So is a freedom a concept that applies to individuals or to herds?

Both, but applying it to individuals doesn't lead us to the place I suspect you are trying to go. That requires several more (false) assumptions.

What are the Federal legal decisions or Federally passed laws that you are pointing to "that affirmatively favor the rich and powerful"?

Start with the flattening of the tax code in the 1980s. Go from there to provisions in the tax code and trade agreements that encourage outsourcing. Add in the government policies that fail to enforce workers' rights laws and have resulted in a tremendous increase in illegal firings and other illegal activities by employers in the course of union elections. Plus the tax-code provisions that result in some corporations paying no taxes at all. Then there are the laws and court decisions that treat corporations as persons for all legal purposes benefiting corporate power while still regarding them as non-persons for purposes of criminal liability. There are more, but those will do for a start.

All of them, assuming the result was intended, are the result of conservatism by definition. (That's including the parts that are the work of the Clinton administration. Liberal and Democrat are not synonyms.)

You seem to be saying that outcomes are what need to be made equal regardless of effort or application.

Not really, since I don't have to. I'm just pointing out that "equality of opportunity" is not a reality. People born into wealthy families have enormous advantages over people born into poor circumstances. They can go to the best schools, have networks of helpful, successful people, and have great jobs or financial resources available to help them succeed. Bill Gates could not have built the fortune he did without his own ability, but someone with twice his ability could not have done it without wealthy parents as Gates had, because they would never have had the chance.

I have yet to find anyone who talks about "equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome" and also wants to do jack-diddly about the inequities described above -- which makes the first part of that statement a falsehood.

I have held many jobs and i have had many employees.

Most of these folks that reported to me were pretty much equal in all ways save a couple. The points of differentiation most often had to do with dependability and effort. These had nothing to do with social strata or nepotism or favoritism.

In this country, if you just show up every day, do a credible job on your assignments and seek the best counsel from your peers and superiors at work, you will advance and find a good life for yourself.

If you decide that work is a secondary pursuit and that drinking or womanizing or fishing or sleeping late are your real goals, then not so much.

Equality of opportunity is what most people want. Equality of outcome is a penalty for those who do the best they can and watch those who are slacking find the same results.

 

[code1211]

All men are created equal is more true right here and right now than it has ever been at any time in history or at any place in history.

That you cannot see this is telling.

Yeah, it tells us that I'm living in reality instead of a pipe-dream. At a time when inequality of income is higher than it's been at any time since the 1920s, to say what you just said is so out-of-touch as to be staggering.

You're simply, factually, demonstrably wrong. End of story.

Again, you're talking about outcomes, not opportunity. This is simply class envy.

My father in law wanted a family and a house in post war USA. He became an electrician and worked full time. He used his income to pay for the materials and built a 5 bedroom house with his own hands and that included digging the basement with a shovel.

The family lived in the basement and then in the basement and the first floor and then in the basement, the first floor and the second floor. As the family grew, so the house grew to accommodate the family.

When the house was completed, he drove a school bus and then he bought a laundromat and all the while rose throughout the ranks of the electricians union to become a Master Electrician. A very interesting guy with a booming voice, active sense of humor and boundless energy.

If you don't know anyone who has a similar story, you need to open your circle of friends.

Opportunity exists all around us all the time. If you don't see it, it's not because it's not there, it's because you are concentrating on something else.

 

[regent]

My day begins about noon, my driver brings the limo around and we head for the liquor store. There my man takes in my food stamps and exchanges them for some good booze. Then we head for the unemployment office where I sign up for another week of unemployment checks. Then we go to the local emergency hospital and I get my toenails clipped, I claim one is ingrown, finally the welfare office to sign more forms. Exhausting days, but when one is a liberal one must do his liberal thing.

 

[Dragon]

I am not attacking you.

Bullshit. Saying i am motivated by "envy" is a personal attack. And you remain a liar.

When you develop some vestige of a conscience, some degree of intellectual integrity, we can proceed. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you.

 

[code1211]

My day begins about noon, my driver brings the limo around and we head for the liquor store. There my man takes in my food stamps and exchanges them for some good booze. Then we head for the unemployment office where I sign up for another week of unemployment checks. Then we go to the local emergency hospital and I get my toenails clipped, I claim one is ingrown, finally the welfare office to sign more forms. Exhausting days, but when one is a liberal one must do his liberal thing.

Your MAN? What are you? A sexist, misogynist pig?

 

[code1211]

I am not attacking you.

Bullshit. Saying i am motivated by "envy" is a personal attack. And you remain a liar.

When you develop some vestige of a conscience, some degree of intellectual integrity, we can proceed. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you.

You've responded to no questions yet, but I have enjoyed the quest to try to find out why you believe what you believe.

I, and I suspect you, have not yet discovered that.

 

[Dragon]

I am not attacking you.

Bullshit. Saying i am motivated by "envy" is a personal attack. And you remain a liar.

When you develop some vestige of a conscience, some degree of intellectual integrity, we can proceed. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you.

You've responded to no questions yet, but I have enjoyed the quest to try to find out why you believe what you believe.

I, and I suspect you, have not yet discovered that.

I have discovered it. So have you. You are merely pretending not to. As I said, you are a liar. We can proceed when you stop lying.

I haven't answered your questions because none of them were pertinent; they were directed towards views that you made up yourself and presented as if they were mine, not to ones I had actually expressed.

Stop doing that sort of crap, and we can continue.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Stop doing that sort of crap, and we can continue.

You realize it’s likely you won’t be continuing, yes?

You also likely realize it’s pointless to discuss Constitutional issues with libertarians and extreme rightists who reject and otherwise refuse to communicate in the common and established language of Constitutional case law.

I’ll explain to the libertarian/extreme rightist why he is wrong, cite the case law in support, and move on. I do so for the benefit of those wishing to learn, with no delusions that the libertarian/extreme rightist will make any attempt to understand or accept these facts of settled law.

 

[code1211]

Bullshit. Saying i am motivated by "envy" is a personal attack. And you remain a liar.

When you develop some vestige of a conscience, some degree of intellectual integrity, we can proceed. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you.

You've responded to no questions yet, but I have enjoyed the quest to try to find out why you believe what you believe.

I, and I suspect you, have not yet discovered that.

I have discovered it. So have you. You are merely pretending not to. As I said, you are a liar. We can proceed when you stop lying.

I haven't answered your questions because none of them were pertinent; they were directed towards views that you made up yourself and presented as if they were mine, not to ones I had actually expressed.

Stop doing that sort of crap, and we can continue.

Please state and support what you believe.

 

[code1211]

Stop doing that sort of crap, and we can continue.

You realize it’s likely you won’t be continuing, yes?

You also likely realize it’s pointless to discuss Constitutional issues with libertarians and extreme rightists who reject and otherwise refuse to communicate in the common and established language of Constitutional case law.

I’ll explain to the libertarian/extreme rightist why he is wrong, cite the case law in support, and move on. I do so for the benefit of those wishing to learn, with no delusions that the libertarian/extreme rightist will make any attempt to understand or accept these facts of settled law.

Dragon and I are discussing a belief system, not Constitutional Law. i am trying to find out what he believes and am not finding any success.

Is there case law that will reveal this to me?

 

[regent]

My day begins about noon, my driver brings the limo around and we head for the liquor store. There my man takes in my food stamps and exchanges them for some good booze. Then we head for the unemployment office where I sign up for another week of unemployment checks. Then we go to the local emergency hospital and I get my toenails clipped, I claim one is ingrown, finally the welfare office to sign more forms. Exhausting days, but when one is a liberal one must do his liberal thing.

Your MAN? What are you? A sexist, misogynist pig?

Of course, "my man" apparently you don't understand how we wealthy people talk. I won't tell you how we refer to you the downtrodden, the miserable little people, that we tell how to vote. Remember it's Romney.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the libertarian/extreme rightist will[not] make any attempt to understand or accept these facts of settled law.

of course the treasonous liberal knows that Judges pledge to uphold the Constitution, not the scummy liberal "settled" case law.


[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.
—Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944).[9]

Justice Antonin Scalia argues in A Matter of Interpretation that America is a civil law nation, not a common law nation. By principle, originalists are generally unwilling to defer to precedent when precedent seems to come into conflict with the Constitution.

Stare decisis is not mandated by the Constitution, and if it causes unconstitutional results then the historical evidence of original understanding can be re-examined. In this opinion, predictable fidelity to the Constitution is more important than fidelity to unconstitutional precedents.