Relearning the lesson

[CausingPAIN]

federalist should be restricting the rights of the wingnuts just them will for now, we can get to lugnuts later they appear to be rational. it's just political discussion.

 

[Barb]

you understand that the federalist papers was kind of like the blog of its day, right. it isn't law. it's just political discussion.

Not just "Blog Political Discussion" but discussion by two actual signers of the Constitution, the third being John Jay.

the federalist papers aren't the constitution. thanks for playing.

Nor did OP say they were. There were a series of articles arguing the benefits and justification of creating and signing the Constitution.

OP is correct in stating that the Constitution limits GOVERNMENT not PEOPLE, but you didn't like that (because it's true) so you tried to minimize the historical significance of the Federalist Papers by equating it to a simple mindless blog. Well it isn't.

Fail.

And again, please, define "people."

 

[naturegirl]

The progressive radical wing insists they are smarter and have a better understanding of life in general, therefore we should all think and act as they do. They are of superior intelligence. If anyone rejects their ideas then the government should step in and demand laws be passed that are in line with their beliefs.

Obama is a perfect example of this, he knows what's best for us even if we don't. When congress rejects his ideas he just writes an executive order of chooses to just ignore the law. Pelosi and Reid are another fine example of pressing their fellow congressmen/women to get their way.

 

[Barb]

you understand that the federalist papers was kind of like the blog of its day, right. it isn't law. it's just political discussion.

Not just "Blog Political Discussion" but discussion by two actual signers of the Constitution, the third being John Jay.

the federalist papers aren't the constitution. thanks for playing.

Nor did OP say they were. There were a series of articles arguing the benefits and justification of creating and signing the Constitution.

OP is correct in stating that the Constitution limits GOVERNMENT not PEOPLE, but you didn't like that (because it's true) so you tried to minimize the historical significance of the Federalist Papers by equating it to a simple mindless blog. Well it isn't.

Fail.

And again, please, define "people."

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams

Samuel Adams Quotes (Author of The Dissenters)

He wasn't talking about US federalism, he was talking about the East India Trading Company that the British Crown placed ABOVE the working people, tradespeople, and small businesses of the colonies.

SO many of you don't know the basis of your own history that it would be sad, but the time for sadness is long past. Your appalling break from the past and the few things that made our country's beginnings a point of pride are past the point of rendering those hopeful first steps lost in the rising tide of erasure only rivaled by Lenin's Russia.

 

[Barb]

The progressive radical wing insists they are smarter and have a better understanding of life in general, therefor we should all think and act as they do. They are of superior intelligence. If anyone rejects their ideas then the government should step in and demand laws be passed that are in line with their beliefs.

Obama is a perfect example of this, he knows what's best for us even if we don't. When congress rejects his ideas he just writes an executive order of chooses to just ignore the law. Pelosi and Reid are another fine example of pressing their fellow congressmen/women to get their way.

If you don't want to be spoken to as if you know nothing of your beginnings, it might be a good start to educate yourselves.

 

[Liability]

It really is just this basic.

you understand that the federalist papers was kind of like the blog of its day, right.

it isn't law. it's just political discussion.

You do understand that the Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government and not the power of the people.


right?

That would be true EVEN IF it were only said in a blog.

 

[OKTexas]

It really is just this basic.

One thing I've never heard a modern liberal/Progressive/Dem explain using any logic or reason is this: If you believe the Constitution allows all this government meddling in markets and liberty, what exactly is the point of having clearly enumerated powers and the 10th amendment?

Anyone?

Over time the American people and Congress have allowed the Supreme Court, under the guise of interpretation, to gut Article 1, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment. A judge is there to apply law, not interpret it. Interpretation is subjective, written law is objective and not open to interpretation, a law either applies or not, it's that simple. Until we demand that standard from our judges at all levels, we get what we deserve.

 

[amrchaos]

If our current politicians wrote a treatise on how they view the Constitution, would we get something similiar to the Federalist Papers?


Or something closer to the novel 1984?

If you really want to celebrate the constitution, exercise your rights!!

 

[Barb]

If our current politicians wrote a treatise on how they view the Constitution, would we get something similiar to the Federalist Papers?


Or something closer to the novel 1984?

If you really want to celebrate the constitution, exercise your rights!!

ONE f those rights is reading the fucking thing.

 

[Shelzin]

you understand that the federalist papers was kind of like the blog of its day, right. it isn't law. it's just political discussion.

Not just "Blog Political Discussion" but discussion by two actual signers of the Constitution, the third being John Jay.

the federalist papers aren't the constitution. thanks for playing.

Nor did OP say they were. There were a series of articles arguing the benefits and justification of creating and signing the Constitution.

OP is correct in stating that the Constitution limits GOVERNMENT not PEOPLE, but you didn't like that (because it's true) so you tried to minimize the historical significance of the Federalist Papers by equating it to a simple mindless blog. Well it isn't.

Fail.

And again, please, define "people."

People

1. Human beings in general or considered collectively.
2. The citizens of a country, esp. when considered in relation to those who govern them.

Both apply here, but 2 seems more relevant. I'm not sure of the point you are making.

Edit: Missed some posts! I shouldn't open so many threads at once. Got your point.

 

[jillian]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/247495-celebrating-constitution-day.html

the federalist papers aren't the constitution.

thanks for playing.

No one said they are moron. It's about the day. See the word "Constitution"? Stick your thanks up your shit filled ass! I hear an ambulance siren that you can bark at and chase.

you don't know the difference between the federalist papers and the constitution?

i'm not the one who confused the two. you clearly don't know one from the other or what either means.

i'm sorry it makes you feel so insecure when you're shown to be the twit you are.

ah well..

 

[jillian]

It really is just this basic.

One thing I've never heard a modern liberal/Progressive/Dem explain using any logic or reason is this: If you believe the Constitution allows all this government meddling in markets and liberty, what exactly is the point of having clearly enumerated powers and the 10th amendment?

Anyone?

theyt often misquote the 'general welfare' clause of the Constitution as if that alone is the sole key to limitless power exercised by the Federal Government.

They are, of course, wrong.

no. "they" aren't. and i'd suggest that a reading of the supreme court cases on the commerce clause does exactly what it should... allows for the operation of government. if we were supposed to be state centric and not have a strong central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

and thanks so much for your opinion that "they are... wrong"... i'm sure the justices of the supreme court who wrote all of those decisions would be amused to learn that you know more about the constitution than they do/did.

and even in the grey areas... where you get splits along party lines... half the justices would disagree with you. your idea of what the constitution is bears no relationship with what most people are taught about constitutional construction.

 

[Grandma]

There's nothing in the Constitution about child labor or working conditions, is there? No. So are laws about these things unconstitutional? No.

Unlike the full o' fail libertarian theory that exploitative businesses would find that no one would to work for them, the bosses of old were unified and successful in exploiting workers, calling out their Pinkerton goons if the employees demanded fairness.

So the government passed laws, the Supreme Court heard cases, and the laws were upheld.

Even with the most obstructionist Congress in history, laws still get passed all the time. If they weren't, we'd be living like Charles Dickens characters.

Like it or not, things change with time and we have to keep up with the changes.

 

[California Girl]

It really is just this basic.

you understand that the federalist papers was kind of like the blog of its day, right.

it isn't law. it's just political discussion.

Are you actually suggesting that it is wrong? Seriously?

 

[Darkwind]

It really is just this basic.

Define "people."

When Reagan became Governor of California, (Once the introductory niceties were taken care of) he began his Inaugural Address with sentiments that speak to the very heart of what every American used to understand about what it is to be a free people, about democracy, and about the principles that defined our representative republic:

Perhaps you and I have lived with this miracle too long to be properly appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.
Knowing this, it is hard to explain those who even today would question the people’s capacity for self-rule.182 […] Government is the people’s business, and every man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid

Reagan, Ronald, Governor of California, Inauguration Address, January 5, 1967, retrieved December 11, 2011 from Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, National Archives and Records Administration

Can someone point out for the class where it is written in the Constitution that we aren’t citizens until we’re tax-payers? No? That’s because it’s not there.

With all the profound wording of the Constitution, probably the most meaningful words are the first three, ―We, the People.‖ […] We are of the people, chosen by them to see that no permanent structure of government ever encroaches on freedom or assumes a power beyond that freely granted by the people.

Those would have been heartening words if you weren‘t really listening very closely, almost as if Reagan began his political career with an understanding of individual liberty, and sympathy for ―we, the people.‖ However, ―we weren‘t ―the people he was speaking of.

He left room for other “permanent structures” to encroach “on freedom [and assume] a power beyond that freely granted by the people.”

And those were not people. Those were legal constructs, fabrications of contract law that neither bled, nor bred, nor hungered, lusted, or died as HUMAN PEOPLE do, to direct our government, to limit the volume of OUR voices ON OUR government, and to make that government, our supposedly representative republic, responsive to the command of the false conglomerate computerized "voices" to the detriment of the human people our Constitutional laws were designed to protect FROM them.

THIS is what you advocate, THIS is the "freedom" you and all others like you push and gnash and grasp for. You scream for your own subjugation, and when the day comes where someone threatens to free you from those chains you respond, in typical knee-jerk fashion, by calling that force illegitimate, foreign, and socialist.

If you knew, and I'm not even that sure that you don't, what this, OUR COUNTY has done to democratically elected nations to support military dictatorships amenable to corporate subjugation of their people, that borrowed our wealth to fund their degradation and whose people continue to pay interest on those loans, you might still lend your voice in support of such endeavors in your own country, one which you supposedly love (gag). I would have hoped not, but honestly, I have no more good natured reality to suspend. You all allowed that shit to come right on home, and you're defending it HERE.

After all that, I conclude that you still have not learned the lesson.

 

[Darkwind]

There's nothing in the Constitution about child labor or working conditions, is there? No. So are laws about these things unconstitutional? No.

Unlike the full o' fail libertarian theory that exploitative businesses would find that no one would to work for them, the bosses of old were unified and successful in exploiting workers, calling out their Pinkerton goons if the employees demanded fairness.

So the government passed laws, the Supreme Court heard cases, and the laws were upheld.

Even with the most obstructionist Congress in history, laws still get passed all the time. If they weren't, we'd be living like Charles Dickens characters.

Like it or not, things change with time and we have to keep up with the changes.

What does this have to do with the concept that the Constitution limits power of government, not people?

Why do you people always reach for the most extreme examples and then say this is what everything will be like if we don't do away with the Constitution....

 

[Darkwind]

One thing I've never heard a modern liberal/Progressive/Dem explain using any logic or reason is this: If you believe the Constitution allows all this government meddling in markets and liberty, what exactly is the point of having clearly enumerated powers and the 10th amendment?

Anyone?

theyt often misquote the 'general welfare' clause of the Constitution as if that alone is the sole key to limitless power exercised by the Federal Government.

They are, of course, wrong.

no. "they" aren't. and i'd suggest that a reading of the supreme court cases on the commerce clause does exactly what it should... allows for the operation of government. if we were supposed to be state centric and not have a strong central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

and thanks so much for your opinion that "they are... wrong"... i'm sure the justices of the supreme court who wrote all of those decisions would be amused to learn that you know more about the constitution than they do/did.

and even in the grey areas... where you get splits along party lines... half the justices would disagree with you. your idea of what the constitution is bears no relationship with what most people are taught about constitutional construction.

Government is operating outside the boundary of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has not ruled upon this. The commerce clause is NOT an open check to abuse the citizenry, or to help the citizenry.

Governments power IS limited by the Constitution, as it should be.

You advocate for the power of government over the power of people, which makes you wrong.

 

[eflatminor]

One thing I've never heard a modern liberal/Progressive/Dem explain using any logic or reason is this: If you believe the Constitution allows all this government meddling in markets and liberty, what exactly is the point of having clearly enumerated powers and the 10th amendment?

Anyone?

theyt often misquote the 'general welfare' clause of the Constitution as if that alone is the sole key to limitless power exercised by the Federal Government.

They are, of course, wrong.

no. "they" aren't. and i'd suggest that a reading of the supreme court cases on the commerce clause does exactly what it should... allows for the operation of government. if we were supposed to be state centric and not have a strong central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

and thanks so much for your opinion that "they are... wrong"... i'm sure the justices of the supreme court who wrote all of those decisions would be amused to learn that you know more about the constitution than they do/did.

and even in the grey areas... where you get splits along party lines... half the justices would disagree with you. your idea of what the constitution is bears no relationship with what most people are taught about constitutional construction.

Progressivism has infected every level of politics and the courts as well. I'll ask you the same questions I'd ask the "liberal" judges: If the commerce clause is required to "allow for the operation of government":
1) How'd we manage to operate government during the first 150+ years of the country's existence when we considered the commerce clause no excuse to meddle in free markets?; and
2) If the founders thought the same way you do about the commerce clause, what is the point in enumerating the powers and the 10th amendment?

 

[Sinjorri]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/247495-celebrating-constitution-day.html

the federalist papers aren't the constitution.

thanks for playing.

people, my people who i love, you have to understand and you have to see with your eyes, these are the type of people THAT hate, HATE, the constitution. They hate having rights, they hate having to think for themselves, and god forbid they hate having to do for themselves and having the pride of what they accomplished.

these are the people who could never make it in any other country because those countries are going to make you work a hundred times more for a hundred times less, and they could survive there and if we take away the entitlements they wouldnt make it here.

She hates to have rights, she hates to defend those rights, and she hates anyone who would dare stand up for the rights of the people and the rights that we enjoy everyday vs those who do not.

 

[Grandma]

Quote: Originally Posted by eflatminor

One thing I've never heard a modern liberal/Progressive/Dem explain using any logic or reason is this: If you believe the Constitution allows all this government meddling in markets and liberty, what exactly is the point of having clearly enumerated powers and the 10th amendment?

The Constitution says that individual rights cannot be infringed on by a state. Sometimes states pass questionable laws that must be ruled on.