CDZ Is the Republic worth saving?

[PoliticalChic]

Y


es, but only with major changes to the Constitution. We need a document that expresses the responsibilities and duties of a citizen as much as the rights there of. We need to ensure that it is understood the only way to change the meaning of anything in it is via amendment, not simply deciding we don’t like that part anymore. A DEFINITIVE and exclusive list of Congressional powers must be included as well. Lastly, a direct and definitive assertion of the morals and values REQUIRED of all US citizens and the inmediate fatal consequences for violating them must be included.

It is, and has always been, there....in the text itself.

It is written in English, hence requires no 'interpretation'...merely application.

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor 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.’
   1. 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
      

"A DEFINITIVE and exclusive list of Congressional powers must be included as well."
It is there already....article 1, section 8.




"Lastly, a direct and definitive assertion of the morals and values REQUIRED of all US citizens and the inmediate fatal consequences for violating them must be included."

Now, you're goin' off the deep end, grumpy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not anticipating partisan political parties was the Constitution's biggest omission. Otherwise it was brilliant.

We need a Constitutional Convention to restore its original intentions and defend it against "activist" judges.

While I do not support a convention to alter the Constitution, you are spot on about judges.

1.The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

The Marshall Court found such authority in Marbury v. Madison (1803), expanding the Court's authority beyond that found in the Constitution without an amendment to do so.

It was an early distortion of the constitutional model. It essentially made the Court the extra-equal branch of government.

It was outright theft....of undeserved power.

Chief Justice John Marshall…. Chief Villain

1.It’s the age-old battle: human nature vs. the limits of the human mind.
With all the study and experience that went into constructing the brilliant document, the United States Constitution, the seeds of our own destruction was buried deep within it.

Where?

“Article III of the Constitution establishes and empowers the judicial branch of the national government. The very first sentence of Article III says:
“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” (Google)



2. The problem is that the limits to the power of the Supreme Court is not specified, and this allowed the power-grab that that has resulted in today’s judicial tyranny.

“The most striking thing about judicial review, at first, is that it is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, although it was unprecedented in English law—the source of our basic legal institutions and practices—and poses an obvious threat to representative self-government.

If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word.

It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf





3. That’s the ‘human nature’ problem: self-aggrandizement, often rationalized as beneficence. No doubt, John Marshall, and all of the other judges who have utilized activism believed that it was best for the nation to have a central government with unlimited power.

This was not the basis on which the country was built, nor the Constitution ratified!!!!




4. Let's go over that again: rather than having federal courts with the power to decide any kinds of cases, the document ratified by the people created a federal judiciary which left most judicial power to the state governments.

That would include flag burning, abortion, state government recognition of religion, e.g., public prayer, and homosexual marriage. State courts....not federal.
See Gutzman, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," p.26-28.

Federalists who voted to ratify the Constitution were very clear on this issue.




Soooo…..what happened?

Chief Justice John Marshall happened.

 

[Anathema]

"A DEFINITIVE and exclusive list of Congressional powers must be included as well."
It is there already....article 1, section 8.


"Lastly, a direct and definitive assertion of the morals and values REQUIRED of all US citizens and the inmediate fatal consequences for violating them must be included."

Now, you're goin' off the deep end, grumpy.

I agree with you relative to Article I Section 8. We do need to remove General Weldare and Common Defense to remove all doubt.

Unless this nation defines its Society in writing, it cannot be enforced. If we don’t, we’ll be right back where we are now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"A DEFINITIVE and exclusive list of Congressional powers must be included as well."
It is there already....article 1, section 8.


"Lastly, a direct and definitive assertion of the morals and values REQUIRED of all US citizens and the inmediate fatal consequences for violating them must be included."

Now, you're goin' off the deep end, grumpy.

I agree with you relative to Article I Section 8. We do need to remove General Weldare and Common Defense to remove all doubt.

Unless this nation defines its Society in writing, it cannot be enforced. If we don’t, we’ll be right back where we are now.

1. "We do need to remove General Weldare (sic) and Common Defense to remove all doubt."

The Congress is there to decide which of these is to be in force:

1. Article I, section 8, clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;….
   1. Hamilton’s view was that this clause gave Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, whatsoever they decide that might be.
   2. William Drayton, in 1828, came down on the side of Madison, Jefferson and others, pointing out that if Hamilton was correct, what point would there have been to enumerate Congresses’ other powers? If Congress wished to do anything it was not authorized to do, it could accomplish it via taxing and spending. He said, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?" 'Charity Not a Proper Function of the American Government' by Walter E. Williams
   3. According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carryout the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8,and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend withoutlimitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150years. General Welfare

No 'common defense'?????
No armed forces?????

Nay, nay!





"Unless this nation defines its Society in writing, it cannot be enforced. If we don’t, we’ll be right back where we are now."

Wouldn't that move us way from the definition of 'liberty'?

But....if you insist....I wanna be Queen....and you can be one of my palanquin handlers.....

 

[Anathema]

1. "We do need to remove General Weldare (sic) and Common Defense to remove all doubt”

No 'common defense'?????
No armed forces?????

Nay, nay!



"Unless this nation defines its Society in writing, it cannot be enforced. If we don’t, we’ll be right back where we are now."

Wouldn't that move us way from the definition of 'liberty'?

General Welfare and Conmin Defense are defined by the eighteen specific items that follow. Leaving those two items allows for the confusion that things beyond the eighteen defined items can be legislated and spent on.

Remember, I don’t believe in Freedom or Rights, including Liberty. I believe in a Constitutional Authoritarian style of Government.

I’ll be dead before I ever serve a woman.

 

[Tax Man]

The discussion of the constitution of the USA is really not needed as the only true cure for conservative dictatorship is revolution.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

1. "We do need to remove General Weldare (sic) and Common Defense to remove all doubt”

No 'common defense'?????
No armed forces?????

Nay, nay!



"Unless this nation defines its Society in writing, it cannot be enforced. If we don’t, we’ll be right back where we are now."

Wouldn't that move us way from the definition of 'liberty'?

General Welfare and Conmin Defense are defined by the eighteen specific items that follow. Leaving those two items allows for the confusion that things beyond the eighteen defined items can be legislated and spent on.

Remember, I don’t believe in Freedom or Rights, including Liberty. I believe in a Constitutional Authoritarian style of Government.

You'd be happiest in Saudi Arabia, then.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The discussion of the constitution of the USA is really not needed as the only true cure for conservative dictatorship is revolution.

There is no dictatorship, so be careful what you wish for. You could well end up with one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "We do need to remove General Weldare (sic) and Common Defense to remove all doubt”

No 'common defense'?????
No armed forces?????

Nay, nay!



"Unless this nation defines its Society in writing, it cannot be enforced. If we don’t, we’ll be right back where we are now."

Wouldn't that move us way from the definition of 'liberty'?

General Welfare and Conmin Defense are defined by the eighteen specific items that follow. Leaving those two items allows for the confusion that things beyond the eighteen defined items can be legislated and spent on.

Remember, I don’t believe in Freedom or Rights, including Liberty. I believe in a Constitutional Authoritarian style of Government.

I’ll be dead before I ever serve a woman.

" I don’t believe in Freedom or Rights, including Liberty. I believe in a Constitutional Authoritarian style of Government.

I’ll be dead before I ever serve a woman."

OK....be that way: another Christmas card I don't have to send out.

 

[Anathema]

You'd be happiest in Saudi Arabia, then.

No. That’s a theocracy, no matter what they want to try to call it. I have zero use for organized religion.

What I prefer is a Government rigidly defined by its founding document, where the people running it are nothing more than bureaucrats carrying out its dictates, not making decisions themselves.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The discussion of the constitution of the USA is really not needed as the only true cure for conservative dictatorship is revolution.

Hemingway said:” “Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter.”

Granted, I only do it with a keyboard….but I’m putting that laser dot on your forehead as we speak.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You'd be happiest in Saudi Arabia, then.

No. That’s a theocracy, no matter what they want to try to call it. I have zero use for organized religion.

What I prefer is a Government rigidly defined by its founding document, where the people running it are nothing more than bureaucrats carrying out its dictates, not making decisions themselves.

No grain in that silo.

 

[Anathema]

No grain in that silo.

It’s the only way to fix the problems we have. It takes all politics out of the equation. It forces things to be uniform throughout the country. It provides for consistency of punishment and real Justice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No grain in that silo.

It’s the only way to fix the problems we have. It takes all politics out of the equation. It forces things to be uniform throughout the country. It provides for consistency of punishment and real Justice.

And I bet you could make the trains run on time, too!


Now....be sure you iron that brown shirt before you go out.

 

[Anathema]

And I bet you could make the trains run on time, too!

Now....be sure you iron that brown shirt before you go out.

Yes I can. The shirt isn’t brown, it’s black and has double lightning bolts on both collars, if you want to go with a Nazi analogy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And I bet you could make the trains run on time, too!

Now....be sure you iron that brown shirt before you go out.

Yes I can. The shirt isn’t brown, it’s black and has double lightning bolts on both collars, if you want to go with a Nazi analogy.

On a scale of one to ten, what’s your favorite color in the alphabet?

 

[Anathema]

On a scale of one to ten, what’s your favorite color in the alphabet?

HATRED

 

[PoliticalChic]

On a scale of one to ten, what’s your favorite color in the alphabet?

HATRED

It seems that you are a family man…the Manson Family.

 

[Anathema]

It seems that you are a family man…the Manson Family.

No. Charlie was an amateur who didn’t accomplish anything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It seems that you are a family man…the Manson Family.

No. Charlie was an amateur who didn’t accomplish anything.

That's not what Sharon Tate said.

Didn’t you say Elvis sat between you and bigfoot on the UFO?