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

[daveman]

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?

www.rightwingerspastyass.com

 

[rightwinger]

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

Doesn't matter

Nothing will ever approach the number of legal cases decided on the Constitution

Far from "clear and concise" don't ya think?

 

[Redfish]

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?

www.rightwingerspastyass.com

link does not work

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Why do we rank 37th in healthcare?

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6Our

our founding fathers would not be pleased

 

[ron4342]

redfish posted:
"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."

Ron sez:
Has the Supreme Court received the memo on this? I don't think so. If the Constitution is so "clear and concise" why was a SC created in the first place? If I recall correctly it is their job to interprete the Constitution.

 

[daveman]

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

www.rightwingerspastyass.com

link does not work

Don't click it...read it.

 

[Redfish]

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

Doesn't matter

Nothing will ever approach the number of legal cases decided on the Constitution

Far from "clear and concise" don't ya think?

The cases have not been on the clearness or conciseness of the constitution. the cases were to determine if a law or ruling was constitutional.

again, false analogy, failure #2

 

[deltex1]

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."

Dead wrong Doc. The founders were "liberal" (small l) in that they believed in personal freedom and responsibility. Today, Liberals (capital L) pretend to believe in the poor and working class, cry about inequality of opportunity while sitting on their ass waiting for a handout, and vote for government to take care of them till death.

 

[Redfish]

www.rightwingerspastyass.com

link does not work

Don't click it...read it.

got it, kinda slow on this cold rainy day

 

[rightwinger]

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

Doesn't matter

Nothing will ever approach the number of legal cases decided on the Constitution

Far from "clear and concise" don't ya think?

The cases have not been on the clearness or conciseness of the constitution. the cases were to determine if a law or ruling was constitutional.

again, false analogy, failure #2

Clear and consise documents would not require that ruling.

 

[daveman]

Doesn't matter

Nothing will ever approach the number of legal cases decided on the Constitution

Far from "clear and concise" don't ya think?

The cases have not been on the clearness or conciseness of the constitution. the cases were to determine if a law or ruling was constitutional.

again, false analogy, failure #2

Clear and consise documents would not require that ruling.

Read the Second Amendment. It's clear and concise. But the left has been insisting it means something different for decades.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Afraid you are

You are claiming that the government that the founders set up for an 18th century, third world America is what they would have wanted for today

I don't think our founders were that stupid, do you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

He was increasing the role of government in people's lives: yes, he was a progressive.

 

[rightwinger]

The cases have not been on the clearness or conciseness of the constitution. the cases were to determine if a law or ruling was constitutional.

again, false analogy, failure #2

Clear and consise documents would not require that ruling.

Read the Second Amendment. It's clear and concise. But the left has been insisting it means something different for decades.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Seems they wanted to ensure that their militia had access to arms. Now, we have to set up some of those well regulated militias don't we?

Seems clear and concise

 

[BlackSand]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Seems they wanted to ensure that their militia had access to arms. Now, we have to set up some of those well regulated militias don't we?

Seems clear and concise

As far as the Federal Government's responsibilities in setting up a well regulated Militia ... I would say so ... The Military and Guard Services are pretty regulated.
As far as the states governing their responsibilities towards their citizens' right to bear arms ... Some do better than others.

.

 

[Redfish]

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.

He was increasing the role of government in people's lives: yes, he was a progressive.

JFK---progressive on a few things, very conservative on others. No one is totally one or the other, except you and RW. are you two conjoined twins?

 

[Redfish]

Doesn't matter

Nothing will ever approach the number of legal cases decided on the Constitution

Far from "clear and concise" don't ya think?

The cases have not been on the clearness or conciseness of the constitution. the cases were to determine if a law or ruling was constitutional.

again, false analogy, failure #2

Clear and consise documents would not require that ruling.

wrong, clear and concise laws and court rulings would not require SCOTUS review. Its not the constitution they are ruling on, its laws and court rulings from current times.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

You don’t understand.

The fundamental jurisprudence and Anglo-American judicial tradition concerning the doctrines of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts predate the Constitution; the Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, forged in the crucible of the rule of law, dating back to the Magna Carta and Assizes of Henry II.

The genius of the Founding Generation, therefore, was to conjoin English Common Law and a governing political framework that is the US Constitution. Our Constitution brilliantly seeks to strike a balance between the individual rights of men and the authority of the state to govern in accordance with the rule of law at the behest of the American people. Hence the Framers sought to create a Republic, not a democracy, where the people are governed solely by the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Not only did the Framers expect the courts to interpret the Constitution in the context of judicial review, but they depended upon it as a vital component of sound and responsible governance performed by the Judicial Branch, pursuant to Separation of Powers Doctrine at the heart of safeguarding our civil liberties.

Consequently we see the notion that the Constitution “does not need to be 'interpreted' by anyone” is meaningless nonsense, as it was the original intent of the Framers that the Constitution indeed be interpreted as the courts review the constitutionality of laws.

Last, all perceptions of the Constitution manifest an interpretation – no matter how ‘litteralist,’ ‘originalist,’ ‘strict-constructionist,’ or ‘constitutionalist’ that perception might be; no political party, ideology, doctrine, or dogma possesses a ‘monopoly’ on the ‘true meaning’ of the Constitution, to argue otherwise is ignorant idiocy. This is why it is a fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the courts, in accordance with the intent of the Framers.

 

[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.

You don’t understand.

The fundamental jurisprudence and Anglo-American judicial tradition concerning the doctrines of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts predate the Constitution; the Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, forged in the crucible of the rule of law, dating back to the Magna Carta and Assizes of Henry II.

The genius of the Founding Generation, therefore, was to conjoin English Common Law and a governing political framework that is the US Constitution. Our Constitution brilliantly seeks to strike a balance between the individual rights of men and the authority of the state to govern in accordance with the rule of law at the behest of the American people. Hence the Framers sought to create a Republic, not a democracy, where the people are governed solely by the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Not only did the Framers expect the courts to interpret the Constitution in the context of judicial review, but they depended upon it as a vital component of sound and responsible governance performed by the Judicial Branch, pursuant to Separation of Powers Doctrine at the heart of safeguarding our civil liberties.

Consequently we see the notion that the Constitution “does not need to be 'interpreted' by anyone” is meaningless nonsense, as it was the original intent of the Framers that the Constitution indeed be interpreted as the courts review the constitutionality of laws.

Last, all perceptions of the Constitution manifest an interpretation – no matter how ‘litteralist,’ ‘originalist,’ ‘strict-constructionist,’ or ‘constitutionalist’ that perception might be; no political party, ideology, doctrine, or dogma possesses a ‘monopoly’ on the ‘true meaning’ of the Constitution, to argue otherwise is ignorant idiocy. This is why it is a fact that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the courts, in accordance with the intent of the Framers.

nice attempt at a history lesson, but mostly a meaningless rant.

SCOTUS cases are NOT about interpreting the constitution or what the founders MAY have been thinking when they wrote it----------SCOTUS cases are to determine if a current law or court decision is in compliance with the constitution, you want it the other way around, and its not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The cases have not been on the clearness or conciseness of the constitution. the cases were to determine if a law or ruling was constitutional.

again, false analogy, failure #2

Clear and consise documents would not require that ruling.

Read the Second Amendment. It's clear and concise. But the left has been insisting it means something different for decades.

If you didn't have a Supreme Court to decide what the 2nd amendment means, how would you decide what the 2nd amendment means.