Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like a few people here are making the common error of mistaking Republicans for conservatives.

Some might make this mistake innocently, simply from not knowing what conservatism is, and how it differs from Republicans sometimes do.

Others do it for the purpose of concealing what conservatism is... since the Constitution is a fundamentally conservative document, and it opposes the big-government agenda of most liberals (in both parties). Their attempts to pretend that conservatives have a big-government agenda, .

The Constitution is a LIBERTARIAN DOCUMENT

No authority was granted to invade every country on the face of mother earth

no authority was granted to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations

No, it is a conservative document. Libertarians are dead set against the U.S. having any foreign interventions at all, while the Constitution contains no such bans. For that matter, the Constitution never explicitly authorized the U.S. military to shoot anyone at all. Yet it authorized the creation and maintenance of a U.S. Military. Clearly it intended the military to be used for purposes not explicity listed in the Constitution. But you'll never get a Libertarian to agree with that... which is one way the Libertarians disagree with the Constitution.

 

[Contumacious]

Looks like a few people here are making the common error of mistaking Republicans for conservatives.

Some might make this mistake innocently, simply from not knowing what conservatism is, and how it differs from Republicans sometimes do.

Others do it for the purpose of concealing what conservatism is... since the Constitution is a fundamentally conservative document, and it opposes the big-government agenda of most liberals (in both parties). Their attempts to pretend that conservatives have a big-government agenda, .

The Constitution is a LIBERTARIAN DOCUMENT

No authority was granted to invade every country on the face of mother earth

no authority was granted to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations

No, it is a conservative document. Libertarians are dead set against the U.S. having any foreign interventions at all, while the Constitution contains no such bans..

BULLSHIT.

The US Constitution grants powers if a power or authority is not granted then the authority was denied.

You sound just like the fucking liberals and their bullshit "the welfare state is allowed because it is not banned."

.

.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The US Constitution grants powers if a power or authority is not granted then the authority was denied.

So when the U.S. Military killed, say, Osama bin Laden, they were acting unconstitutionally?

 

[Contumacious]

The US Constitution grants powers if a power or authority is not granted then the authority was denied.

So when the U.S. Military killed, say, Osama bin Laden, they were acting unconstitutionally?

Absolutely.

The individual should been arrested, indicted, tried and if the allegations were proved then executed.

.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The US Constitution grants powers if a power or authority is not granted then the authority was denied.

So when the U.S. Military killed, say, Osama bin Laden, they were acting unconstitutionally?

Absolutely.

The individual should been arrested, indicted, tried and if the allegations were proved then executed.

.

But the U.S. Military did not arrest him, did not indict him, did not try him. They simply filled him full of holes.

Where does the Constitution explicitly give the U.S. Military the authorization to kill anybody?

 

[dblack]

Your statement Conservatives have no interest in big government (except in getting rid of it) is false. My examples show why.

You are a libertarian, not a conservative, and your last post is very confused.

Please stay on track.

The confusion is yours. You seem to have mis-attributed a quote or something. Put down the drink and read again.

Shut up if you can't confront my examples above with clear and precise examples.

Calm down dumbass, and try to focus. I wasn't responding to your insane argument, just pointing out that are confusing your quotes. That's why you thought it didn't make sense.

 

[bripat9643]

The US Constitution grants powers if a power or authority is not granted then the authority was denied.

So when the U.S. Military killed, say, Osama bin Laden, they were acting unconstitutionally?

Of course. Osama Bin Laden orchestrated an attack on American citizens in America proper. He committed an act of war as well as mass murder.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The confusion is yours. You seem to have mis-attributed a quote or something. Put down the drink and read again.

Shut up if you can't confront my examples above with clear and precise examples.

Calm down dumbass, and try to focus. I wasn't responding to your insane argument, just pointing out that are confusing your quotes. That's why you thought it didn't make sense.

Shut up if you can't talk intelligently. You are confusing what is posted above.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those are the ones I was talking about: The ones who innocently make the mistake, because they don't know what an actual conservative is.

A conservative is someone who doesn't want government interfering with any part of his life, unless (a) interference is absolutely necessary, and (b) government is the ONLY one who can successfully do it. True for fiscal situations and social situations alike.

Sonny, you just described libertarianism.

Probably so. Libertarians are conservatives. They just have kooky ideas on foreign policy, which pretty much keep them from ever gaining most public offices.

Your statement above is why mainstream Republicanism distrusts the far right conservatives and the libertarians: they are muddled, inconsistent, and counter productive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the above confusion is why the mainstream of the American electorate simply does its best to ignore the reactionaries of the far right, the libertarians, and the anarchists.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like a few people here are making the common error of mistaking Republicans for conservatives.

Some might make this mistake innocently, simply from not knowing what conservatism is, and how it differs from Republicans sometimes do.

Others do it for the purpose of concealing what conservatism is... since the Constitution is a fundamentally conservative document, and it opposes the big-government agenda of most liberals (in both parties). Their attempts to pretend that conservatives have a big-government agenda, are a laughable farce that tries to pretend that conservatives are guilty of the sin of big-govt liberalism, and that big-govt liberalism is the only possible choice any government ever has.

This strenuous attempt to ignore actual conservatism, is a significant admission from the big-govt pushers that they can neither refute it nor defeat it. So they must pretend it's not there at all, and that their big-govt agenda is the only POSSIBLE course. Such fibs are part and parcel of the existence of these big-govt witch doctors - they cannot stand any form of competition, Especially forms that, as is the case with conservatism, actually work and produce prosperity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So when the U.S. Military killed, say, Osama bin Laden, they were acting unconstitutionally?

Absolutely.

The individual should been arrested, indicted, tried and if the allegations were proved then executed.

.

But the U.S. Military did not arrest him, did not indict him, did not try him. They simply filled him full of holes.

Where does the Constitution explicitly give the U.S. Military the authorization to kill anybody?

You think we needed a constitutional amendment to defend ourselves militarily against al qaeda after 9/11?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You got it backasswards Jake. The Constitution is a contract of sovereignty that supersedes legislatures and courts. Fuck with it, and the contract is null and void. In other words, We the People are under no obligation to abide government that fails to honor its obligations, regardless of how our representatives vote.

Contracts have to be declared null and void by whatever authority has the jurisdiction and power to do so.

All you're talking about is a person's right to lawlessness.

The nature of a contract is that it's a mutual agreement. If either side fails to abide by it, it's no longer binding. That's not really controversial, is it? Are you really comfortable being bound to a contract that can be modified without your consent?

The nature of a contract is that there is a legal authority over it that can LEGALLY arbitrate any challenges to its validity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You got it backasswards Jake. The Constitution is a contract of sovereignty that supersedes legislatures and courts. Fuck with it, and the contract is null and void. In other words, We the People are under no obligation to abide government that fails to honor its obligations, regardless of how our representatives vote.

Contracts have to be declared null and void by whatever authority has the jurisdiction and power to do so.

All you're talking about is a person's right to lawlessness.

The nature of a contract is that it's a mutual agreement. If either side fails to abide by it, it's no longer binding. That's not really controversial, is it? Are you really comfortable being bound to a contract that can be modified without your consent?

If you're referring to case law modifying the Constitution, the Supreme Court HAS consent to do that,

they have the consent of the governed, which is basically how democracy works.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Absolutely.

The individual should been arrested, indicted, tried and if the allegations were proved then executed.

.

But the U.S. Military did not arrest him, did not indict him, did not try him. They simply filled him full of holes.

Where does the Constitution explicitly give the U.S. Military the authorization to kill anybody?

You think we needed a constitutional amendment to defend ourselves militarily against al qaeda after 9/11?

The question is not what *I* think. "Contumacious" insisted that:

The Constitution is a LIBERTARIAN DOCUMENT
No authority was granted to invade every country on the face of mother earth
no authority was granted to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations

When I pointed out to him that maybe the Constitution intended the military to do more than what it specifically spelled out, he called me a liberal and accused me of trying to put new laws in place, yada yada. I pointed out that the Const didn't even explicitly say the U.S. Military could kill ANYBODY, yet the Const does specifically authorize a military. I then asked him if this meant the U.S. Military acted unconstitutionally when it shot Osama Bin Laden.

He changed the question and said that they could capture him, indict him, and try him. I pointed out that they didn't capture, indict, or try him, they simply killed him. Then restated my original question, about simply killing Bin Laden. I'm awaiting his reply.

This is all in pursuance of my statement that Libertarians are conservatives, except for their kooky foreign-policy stance. This questions gets to the heart of that Libertarian kookiness. So far, "Contumacious" is proving my statement. I await his further discussion.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If you're referring to case law modifying the Constitution, the Supreme Court HAS consent to do that,

they have the consent of the governed, which is basically how democracy works.

Sorry, that's not how the Constitution works. In fact, "case law modifying the Constitution", is flatly unconstitutional.

The ONLY way the Constitution can be modified, is by the procedures listed in Article 5.

We are governed by the Rule of Law (Article 5 of the Constitution), not the "Rule of Men" ("consent of the governed").

Article 5 spells out how the "consent of the governed" must be expressed, to change the Constitution. It offers a couple of methods... but "case law modifying the Constitution" isn't one of them. Lawyers have been trying to do it that way anyway, and hoping they don't get caught. Now they are starting to get caught.

 

[The T]

Contracts have to be declared null and void by whatever authority has the jurisdiction and power to do so.

All you're talking about is a person's right to lawlessness.

The nature of a contract is that it's a mutual agreement. If either side fails to abide by it, it's no longer binding. That's not really controversial, is it? Are you really comfortable being bound to a contract that can be modified without your consent?

If you're referring to case law modifying the Constitution, the Supreme Court HAS consent to do that,

they have the consent of the governed, which is basically how democracy works.

Fatal FLAW in your argument emboldened. WE aren't a DEMOCRACY. Yer done here. 'BYE

 

[JakeStarkey]

But the U.S. Military did not arrest him, did not indict him, did not try him. They simply filled him full of holes.

Where does the Constitution explicitly give the U.S. Military the authorization to kill anybody?

You think we needed a constitutional amendment to defend ourselves militarily against al qaeda after 9/11?

The question is not what *I* think. "Contumacious" insisted that:

The Constitution is a LIBERTARIAN DOCUMENT
No authority was granted to invade every country on the face of mother earth
no authority was granted to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations

When I pointed out to him that maybe the Constitution intended the military to do more than what it specifically spelled out, he called me a liberal and accused me of trying to put new laws in place, yada yada. I pointed out that the Const didn't even explicitly say the U.S. Military could kill ANYBODY, yet the Const does specifically authorize a military. I then asked him if this meant the U.S. Military acted unconstitutionally when it shot Osama Bin Laden.

He changed the question and said that they could capture him, indict him, and try him. I pointed out that they didn't capture, indict, or try him, they simply killed him. Then restated my original question, about simply killing Bin Laden. I'm awaiting his reply.

This is all in pursuance of my statement that Libertarians are conservatives, except for their kooky foreign-policy stance. This questions gets to the heart of that Libertarian kookiness. So far, "Contumacious" is proving my statement. I await his further discussion.

You are a liberal to Contumacious.

PM him and ask why he really wants a libertarian government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When a nimrod posts something like "In fact, 'case law modifying the Constitution, is flatly unconstitutional," you know the nimrod flatly does not understand the Constitution.

Nimrod, you have every right to your beliefs but not to enforce them on us unless you can get the vote, the leges, and the courts.

 

[The T]

You think we needed a constitutional amendment to defend ourselves militarily against al qaeda after 9/11?

The question is not what *I* think. "Contumacious" insisted that:

The Constitution is a LIBERTARIAN DOCUMENT
No authority was granted to invade every country on the face of mother earth
no authority was granted to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations

When I pointed out to him that maybe the Constitution intended the military to do more than what it specifically spelled out, he called me a liberal and accused me of trying to put new laws in place, yada yada. I pointed out that the Const didn't even explicitly say the U.S. Military could kill ANYBODY, yet the Const does specifically authorize a military. I then asked him if this meant the U.S. Military acted unconstitutionally when it shot Osama Bin Laden.

He changed the question and said that they could capture him, indict him, and try him. I pointed out that they didn't capture, indict, or try him, they simply killed him. Then restated my original question, about simply killing Bin Laden. I'm awaiting his reply.

This is all in pursuance of my statement that Libertarians are conservatives, except for their kooky foreign-policy stance. This questions gets to the heart of that Libertarian kookiness. So far, "Contumacious" is proving my statement. I await his further discussion.

You are a liberal to Contumacious.

PM him and ask why he really wants a libertarian government.

And YOU are a PHONEY. PM Real Conservatives of these boards and ask them WHY we know this.