I've heard it on here so much enough is enough

[rightwinger]

the constitution and the laws of the land are not flexible documents, their words have meaning and are not to be "interpreted" by either the liberals or the conservatives.

If either side does not like something in the constitution all they need is a referendum passed by 38 states to change it. Failing that, the constitution stands.

Our courts have the role of interpretting the Constitution. It is not "black and white" and has always been subject to interpretation.

I guess our disagreement is on the meaning of the word "interpret". Deciding if a law or ruling of a lower court is constitutional does not require 'interpreting' the constitution. Either the law or ruling is in accordance with the constitution or its not.

Trying to decide what the drafters of the constitution would have done today is not the role of the SCOTUS. To do that is the equivalent of making law from the bench.

Neither is wearing an 18th century hat to make a decision

 

[boilermaker55]

If you want to go back and live under the rules and ideology of th 1700's, hell , jump in with both feet. But leave me the hell out of that concept.
If you do not believe that the Constitution is every changing work you surely are mistaken.

First liberals on this board or some liberals claim that the founding fathers of this country were liberals. What I want to address is which liberal policy would the founders of America support?
Give their names and the policy.

 

[peach174]

If you want to go back and live under the rules and ideology of th 1700's, hell , jump in with both feet. But leave me the hell out of that concept.
If you do not believe that the Constitution is every changing work you surely are mistaken.

First liberals on this board or some liberals claim that the founding fathers of this country were liberals. What I want to address is which liberal policy would the founders of America support?
Give their names and the policy.

I think that you are confusing times with government.
No one wants to live under the 1700's times, boilermaker55
The Constitution is timeless and can be used throughout the ages

 

[daveman]

Our founders were 18th century Liberals
Today, we have 21st century Liberals

Why would you expect them to be the same thing? Do todays Conservatives still support the King of England? They did in the 18th century

Eighteenth century liberals would see you far leftist "21st century" liberals as the lunatic fringe. If they saw who was president, they would no doubt compare him to the King of England. A tyrant is a tyrant, no matter what century you come from.

Your sarcasm is no substitute for an actual argument.

18th century liberals looked at things through 18th century eyes. They could not come close to envisioning what issues and needs a 21st century society would require. I envision that anyone in the 18th century would look at people in the 21st century as lunatics....imagine having a black man as your president?

Then you admit your claim that the Founders would support Obamacare is asinine. Good for you!

 

[daveman]

Our founders were 18th century Liberals
Today, we have 21st century Liberals

Why would you expect them to be the same thing? Do todays Conservatives still support the King of England? They did in the 18th century

You'll have to ask the idiots who are claiming the limited-government, minimal-taxation, maximum-personal-liberty Founders are just like today's oppressive-government, maximum-taxation, limited-personal-liberty liberals.

18th century liberals had 18th century needs. We were a third world country that was dispersed over thousands of miles. We were deeply in debt and incapable of affording even the most basic government services.
Equating an 18th century agrarian society to a 21st century economic superpower is idiotic

Good thing I'm not doing that, huh?

 

[daveman]

Eighteenth century liberals would see you far leftist "21st century" liberals as the lunatic fringe. If they saw who was president, they would no doubt compare him to the King of England. A tyrant is a tyrant, no matter what century you come from.

What would they make of the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security? What would they make of the Patriot Act? What would they make of the suspension of habaes corpus for detainees, including US citizens? What would they make of waterboarding? What would they make of Medicare D? What would they make of the War in Iraq? What would they make of warrantless wiretaps? What would they make of domestic spying on tens of millions of Americans? What would they make of National Security Letters and the thousands of abuses of those NSLs?

What would they make of the President who was on watch when all this went down? What would they make of the flag pin wearing yahoos cheering him on as he did all this?

Obama may be tyrant, but he was handed the baton. It amuses me all the yahoos didn't discover the Constitution or our Founders until January 20, 2009.

Ahhh. So Obama was utterly powerless to President differently that Bush did.

Well, that's one silly way of excusing Obama for continuing and expanding the abuses Bush committed.

 

[daveman]

Ultimately, conservatism is anathema to the Framers’ fundamental worldview.

Conservatives fear change, diversity, and dissent; as reactionaries they seek to turn back the hands of time to an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.

The Americans of the Foundation Era were diverse and multifaceted, they were not of one mind nor did they see with a single vision – and there were indeed those during that time who feared change and harbored ill-will toward his fellow Americans.

But the Framers and the people of the Era sought change as a means to create for themselves a more perfect Nation – change that required of them courage lacking in today’s conservative; and where liberals today, as the Framers then, embrace change and see it as an opportunity for greatness, conservatives fear and dread change and work to avoid it, perceiving it as a threat to their status and positions of privilege.

Do you know of any good reason I shouldn't laugh in your face?

Me neither.

 

[daveman]

lol, a guy who makes a career out of working for the government insisting he never worked for the government.

In an abstract way you've actually proven how Kennedy was not a conservative.

Kennedy believed that government was a part of the solution to our problems. Quite a large part, in fact.

Conservatives, especially the modern day variety that squawk the loudest, have simply decided that government is the problem, period.

Nothing could be farther from the beliefs of JFK than that.

Thanks for proving my point that progressives can't comprehend the difference between government and nation.

When I served in uniform, I served the nation as a whole. I didn't just serve government bureaucrats. Taxpayers paid my wages; the government just wrote the check -- but the entire nation benefited -- in some small way -- from my service.

You will again utterly fail to understand this.

So when JFK was trying to get Medicare passed, was he acting for the nation or just to create what you call more government bureaucrats?

He did what he thought best for the nation.

But then, he wasn't a progressive, either.

 

[daveman]

The Founders wanted the American people of the 21st century to have the government the American people of the 21st century want.

Which means that if the Founders were around today, the last thing they'd be doing would be slavishly worshipping their own centuries-old ghosts.

Yeah. FUCK the Constitution, right?

 

[daveman]

They'd probably be wondering why they bothered to overthrow British rule.

They wouldn't recognize the current British government either

Imagine that? Times change
Who'da thunk it?

the constitution and the laws of the land are not flexible documents, their words have meaning and are not to be "interpreted" by either the liberals or the conservatives.

If either side does not like something in the constitution all they need is a referendum passed by 38 states to change it. Failing that, the constitution stands.

...until Obama signs an Executive Order.

 

[Redfish]

Our courts have the role of interpretting the Constitution. It is not "black and white" and has always been subject to interpretation.

I guess our disagreement is on the meaning of the word "interpret". Deciding if a law or ruling of a lower court is constitutional does not require 'interpreting' the constitution. Either the law or ruling is in accordance with the constitution or its not.

Trying to decide what the drafters of the constitution would have done today is not the role of the SCOTUS. To do that is the equivalent of making law from the bench.

Neither is wearing an 18th century hat to make a decision

Neither is making decisions based on the teachings of Marx and Lenin.

the constitution is as applicable today as it was when originally written. It does not need to be 'interpreted' by anyone. It is clear and concise--------unlike the ACA law.

 

[rightwinger]

Eighteenth century liberals would see you far leftist "21st century" liberals as the lunatic fringe. If they saw who was president, they would no doubt compare him to the King of England. A tyrant is a tyrant, no matter what century you come from.

Your sarcasm is no substitute for an actual argument.

18th century liberals looked at things through 18th century eyes. They could not come close to envisioning what issues and needs a 21st century society would require. I envision that anyone in the 18th century would look at people in the 21st century as lunatics....imagine having a black man as your president?

Then you admit your claim that the Founders would support Obamacare is asinine. Good for you!

Of course they would.....Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
If the founding fathers looked around and saw how much better healthcare coverage was around the world, they would have insisted on it

They would consider Republicans to be the traitorous Torries that they are

 

[ron4342]

There are a couple examples that I could give as to what you're looking for, but that's not really what people mean when they say the Fathers were "liberal".

"Liberal" and "conservative" have literal meanings that are different from their current political designations.

The founding fathers were "liberal" in the sense that they were "not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted", and not "conservative" in the sense meaning "not liking or accepting changes or new ideas."

That's exactly what I mean some liberals on here think the founders are equal to modern day liberals. and would support the policies of modern day liberals.

Perhaps you should take a few moments and read the Preamble to the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What do you suppose that phrase "..., promote the general Welfare,...." means? It seems to me our founders are saying that the government should work to make the lives of its citizens better and safer. Wouldn't a national healthcare system that works to control costs and provide EVERYONE with the opportunity to have affordable health care be an example of promoting the general welfare? I suspect our founders would approve of ACA.

 

[daveman]

I provided the evidence, fool. It is unequivocal.

Need to see it again?

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Agrarian Justice

Its funny the number of people who preach about what the Founders wanted who are completely unfamiliar with their writings. All they have are out of context bullets from hack sites.

If you will notice, the letter of Jefferson was not about just giving her money, he proposed a means for the poor to take care of themselves, giving them land which makes them wealthier, by them working and producing and gives taxes back to the government.

Not like the liberals of today who just hand out welfare checks, without the poor being able to be productive. They pay no taxes and they just take from the labor of others.

Jefferson is expounding what the Conservatives are saying today. Give them a hand up to help them out of poverty. Not keep them in poverty by just giving them money. All that does is guarantee the vote to the party that gives.
It does not help the poor people nor does it help the government or the people who do work. This type of policy only takes.
Jefferson would have never been for that type of policy.

Interesting....would today's conservatives support giving the poor free land?

They bitch about a freak'n cell phone

What does a landowner have to do?

Pay taxes on it, or lose it. He has to find some way of making it productive, or another means of earning the money to pay the taxes.

Yeah, I'd be okay with giving the poor free land.

But you progressives would want to give them money to pay their taxes, too. You don't want people to be productive. You want people to be dependent.

 

[daveman]

If you want to go back and live under the rules and ideology of th 1700's, hell , jump in with both feet. But leave me the hell out of that concept.
If you do not believe that the Constitution is every changing work you surely are mistaken.

Personally, I don't want to live under the rules and ideology of the USSR circa 1964. I wish progressives would stop trying to make that happen.

 

[rightwinger]

If you will notice, the letter of Jefferson was not about just giving her money, he proposed a means for the poor to take care of themselves, giving them land which makes them wealthier, by them working and producing and gives taxes back to the government.

Not like the liberals of today who just hand out welfare checks, without the poor being able to be productive. They pay no taxes and they just take from the labor of others.

Jefferson is expounding what the Conservatives are saying today. Give them a hand up to help them out of poverty. Not keep them in poverty by just giving them money. All that does is guarantee the vote to the party that gives.
It does not help the poor people nor does it help the government or the people who do work. This type of policy only takes.
Jefferson would have never been for that type of policy.

Interesting....would today's conservatives support giving the poor free land?

They bitch about a freak'n cell phone

What does a landowner have to do?

Pay taxes on it, or lose it. He has to find some way of making it productive, or another means of earning the money to pay the taxes.

Yeah, I'd be okay with giving the poor free land.

But you progressives would want to give them money to pay their taxes, too. You don't want people to be productive. You want people to be dependent.

I'm with you daveman

Same thing that happened when we gave the poor free land in the 1800s. The rich found a way to cheat them out of it

 

[rightwinger]

I guess our disagreement is on the meaning of the word "interpret". Deciding if a law or ruling of a lower court is constitutional does not require 'interpreting' the constitution. Either the law or ruling is in accordance with the constitution or its not.

Trying to decide what the drafters of the constitution would have done today is not the role of the SCOTUS. To do that is the equivalent of making law from the bench.

Neither is wearing an 18th century hat to make a decision

Neither is making decisions based on the teachings of Marx and Lenin.

the constitution is as applicable today as it was when originally written. It does not need to be 'interpreted' by anyone. It is clear and concise--------unlike the ACA law.

Ummmmmm....there are many times more legal cases pertaining to the Constitution than there are on Obamacare. So much for clear and concise

 

[Redfish]

Neither is wearing an 18th century hat to make a decision

Neither is making decisions based on the teachings of Marx and Lenin.

the constitution is as applicable today as it was when originally written. It does not need to be 'interpreted' by anyone. It is clear and concise--------unlike the ACA law.

Ummmmmm....there are many times more legal cases pertaining to the Constitution than there are on Obamacare. So much for clear and concise

which has been around the longest? false analogy, but nice try

 

[Redfish]

18th century liberals looked at things through 18th century eyes. They could not come close to envisioning what issues and needs a 21st century society would require. I envision that anyone in the 18th century would look at people in the 21st century as lunatics....imagine having a black man as your president?

Then you admit your claim that the Founders would support Obamacare is asinine. Good for you!

Of course they would.....Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
If the founding fathers looked around and saw how much better healthcare coverage was around the world, they would have insisted on it

They would consider Republicans to be the traitorous Torries that they are

Healthcare is not 'much better around the world'. Where do you get this crap?

 

[daveman]

Interesting....would today's conservatives support giving the poor free land?

They bitch about a freak'n cell phone

What does a landowner have to do?

Pay taxes on it, or lose it. He has to find some way of making it productive, or another means of earning the money to pay the taxes.

Yeah, I'd be okay with giving the poor free land.

But you progressives would want to give them money to pay their taxes, too. You don't want people to be productive. You want people to be dependent.

I'm with you daveman

Same thing that happened when we gave the poor free land in the 1800s. The rich found a way to cheat them out of it

Do you really think that could happen today -- after all your lecturing about different times?