Republicans in Panic?

[Valerie]

Nope, I favor liberty over government coercion.

You favor ruining a person's livelihood over hurt feelings and 15-20 minutes of their time finding another baker.

Now, if all the bakers in the town decided to do it, then the government would have to act, as there is an actual harm there, not hurt feelings.

public accommodation laws are constitutional and that really hurts ignoramus bigot feelings...

 

[Skylar]

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

see how you like to make things up?


if that is not completely fabricated nonsense, then let's see you give an example..

Bake that damn cake, peasant.

you grasp that constitutional issue ass backwards, but what else is new...?

pity the cake bakers who would like the big gubmint hammer to protect the right to publicly punish people they don't like.

Nope, I favor liberty over government coercion.

You really don't. You favor government coersion over liberty....if that government is the State government.

Take abortion. Currently its a protected right. But you feel that the right should be stripped of the people, that the liberty of a woman to make her own reproductive choices should be taken from her. With the State granted the authority to take that right and turn it into a crime.

That's not 'liberty over government coercion'. That's just plain government coercion.

 

[Valerie]

marty's ilk really hates single mothers and all those sluts who get abortions...

"in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like."

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

see how you like to make things up?


if that is not completely fabricated nonsense, then let's see you give an example..

Bake that damn cake, peasant.

you grasp that constitutional issue ass backwards, but what else is new...?

pity the cake bakers who would like the big gubmint hammer to protect the right to publicly punish people they don't like.

Nope, I favor liberty over government coercion.

You really don't. You favor government coersion over liberty....if that government is the State government.

Take abortion. Currently its a protected right. But you feel that the right should be stripped of the people, that the liberty of a woman to make her own reproductive choices should be taken from her. With the State granted the authority to take that right and turn it into a crime.

That's not 'liberty over government coercion'. That's just plain government coercion.

What reproductive choices does abortion provide? The choice to make poor choices and then terminate a life?

Hmm... interesting.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

marty's ilk really hates single mothers and all those sluts who get abortions...

And puppies and kittens too.

 

[martybegan]

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

I can grasp the concept, and I reject it as absurd.

Do we still use Bloodletting to treat and prevent disease?
Do we still believe the earth is the center of the universe?
Do we still believe a solar eclipse portends a disaster?

Do you understand the concept of stare decisis? Or do you reject that too?

Nowhere in Art. I, sec 8 is the power enumerated to give to the Federal Government to Regulate air corridors, build interstate highways or the transcontinental RR. In fact one failure of the Art. of Confederation was private sector control of roads, canals and bridges. Read some history, you might find out how absurd is the concept the strict constructionist.

However, clause #1 does provide for the Congress to "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the US; ..."

Hint, this is not the 18th Century! Things change, laws are passed by legislatures in cities, states and the Congress to mitigate problems which arise do to evolving social structures (e.g.). the Industrial revolution, rural vis a vis urban populations and fire power.

I'm pragmatic, you're an ideologue; the former thinks outside the box, the latter is stuck in one.

It isn't absurd. Strict construction-ism isn't literal construction-ism. That you have to pull that card out shows you either don't really understand it, or don't want to understand it.

One can account for changes in technology without using the amendment process, however when one changes concepts radically, or adds entirely new ones to the purview of the federal government, the amendment process has to be used.

Anything else is tyranny.

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

How about full auto? A SAW light machine gun? Maybe a nice 50 calibur?

How about grenades? Rocket launchers? Anti-personnel mines?

These are all cutting edge weapons of the standard infantry.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

The 9th and 14th amendment contradict that assumption. As you're using the constitution as an exhaustive list of rights. It isn't one. Its an exhaustive list of powers. And the lack of enumeration in the constitution doesn't mean that a right doesn't exist. As the 9th amendment make ludicrously clear.

Just as the Federalist Papers make it clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the constitution. And to overturn laws that violate it. With the 14th amendment extending this power to the States.

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Rights aren't powers. Nor vice versa. I have no problem with a government recognizing rights. As these are restrictions on government power.

We can eliminate grenades and such, as they are more like artillery, not arms. And crew serviced weapons are also usually not considered arms. What I dont see is government's right to say I can't concealed carry a 9mm handgun "because they feel like it". It's infringement.

The constitution provides protection for rights, true, it does not create them. However it only protects the ones explicit in the document at the federal level, and incorporated to the states so the states can't prevent people from exercise protected rights in the federal document.

However judges making up rights, and then considering it part of the document is laughable, unless you favor more power in the hands of less people. There is no reason other than "we wanted it" that allows the feds to say states cant ban abortion, or can't refuse to issue SSM licenses, its the will of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers, nothing more.

 

[martybegan]

marty's ilk really hates single mothers and all those sluts who get abortions...

"in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like."

Actually I wouldn't vote for an abortion ban if given the choice. My issue is with the process, not the end result in this case. To me, if its before the 3rd trimester, have at it. After that, only in cases of medical need. Plus, parents of minors should at least be informed their kid is getting one. Finally, medical abortions should be covered by insurance, but if its for belated birth control, out of your own pocket please.

 

[martybegan]

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

see how you like to make things up?


if that is not completely fabricated nonsense, then let's see you give an example..

Bake that damn cake, peasant.

you grasp that constitutional issue ass backwards, but what else is new...?

pity the cake bakers who would like the big gubmint hammer to protect the right to publicly punish people they don't like.

Nope, I favor liberty over government coercion.

You really don't. You favor government coersion over liberty....if that government is the State government.

Take abortion. Currently its a protected right. But you feel that the right should be stripped of the people, that the liberty of a woman to make her own reproductive choices should be taken from her. With the State granted the authority to take that right and turn it into a crime.

That's not 'liberty over government coercion'. That's just plain government coercion.

Only in some areas, in NY it would be protected, because the people here want it to be protected. It would also make the issue come out in the open, People would leave places if they didn't like the bans that would be put in place. Again, I wouldn't vote for any ban on abortions in the first two trimesters, as I said in another post, have at it.

Want it protected federally? Get enough support for an amendment.

 

[Ravi]

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

see how you like to make things up?


if that is not completely fabricated nonsense, then let's see you give an example..

Bake that damn cake, peasant.

you grasp that constitutional issue ass backwards, but what else is new...?

pity the cake bakers who would like the big gubmint hammer to protect the right to publicly punish people they don't like.

Nope, I favor liberty over government coercion.

You really don't. You favor government coersion over liberty....if that government is the State government.

Take abortion. Currently its a protected right. But you feel that the right should be stripped of the people, that the liberty of a woman to make her own reproductive choices should be taken from her. With the State granted the authority to take that right and turn it into a crime.

That's not 'liberty over government coercion'. That's just plain government coercion.

Not sure why Marty doesn't get that concept. A tyrannical government is a tyrannical government no matter if federal, state, or local. And under our constitution, a state cannot take away a constitutionally guaranteed right.

 

[Ravi]

Finally, medical abortions should be covered by insurance, but if its for belated birth control, out of your own pocket please.

Why is that? Why can I not buy a policy that covers a legal medical procedure because you don't like it?

 

[martybegan]

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

see how you like to make things up?


if that is not completely fabricated nonsense, then let's see you give an example..

Bake that damn cake, peasant.

you grasp that constitutional issue ass backwards, but what else is new...?

pity the cake bakers who would like the big gubmint hammer to protect the right to publicly punish people they don't like.

Nope, I favor liberty over government coercion.

You really don't. You favor government coersion over liberty....if that government is the State government.

Take abortion. Currently its a protected right. But you feel that the right should be stripped of the people, that the liberty of a woman to make her own reproductive choices should be taken from her. With the State granted the authority to take that right and turn it into a crime.

That's not 'liberty over government coercion'. That's just plain government coercion.

Not sure why Marty doesn't get that concept. A tyrannical government is a tyrannical government no matter if federal, state, or local. And under our constitution, a state cannot take away a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Abortion isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a figment made up by some guys in robes, nothing more. Shift the balance of the court and its gone, poof.

An amendment would make it a constitutionally guaranteed right, and if you treated it the way you idiots want to treat the 2nd, not even then.

 

[martybegan]

Finally, medical abortions should be covered by insurance, but if its for belated birth control, out of your own pocket please.

Why is that? Why can I not buy a policy that covers a legal medical procedure because you don't like it?

My mistake, I meant to mean government funds, not private insurance.

 

[Muhammed]

If Republicans allow George Soros to choose their candidate as well as The Democrat Party candidate then, yeah, America loses.

Again.

I was really kind of hoping for some actual responses... you know, where people think.

You should have indicated that in your OP.

 

[Ravi]

see how you like to make things up?


if that is not completely fabricated nonsense, then let's see you give an example..

Bake that damn cake, peasant.

you grasp that constitutional issue ass backwards, but what else is new...?

pity the cake bakers who would like the big gubmint hammer to protect the right to publicly punish people they don't like.

Nope, I favor liberty over government coercion.

You really don't. You favor government coersion over liberty....if that government is the State government.

Take abortion. Currently its a protected right. But you feel that the right should be stripped of the people, that the liberty of a woman to make her own reproductive choices should be taken from her. With the State granted the authority to take that right and turn it into a crime.

That's not 'liberty over government coercion'. That's just plain government coercion.

Not sure why Marty doesn't get that concept. A tyrannical government is a tyrannical government no matter if federal, state, or local. And under our constitution, a state cannot take away a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Abortion isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a figment made up by some guys in robes, nothing more. Shift the balance of the court and its gone, poof.

An amendment would make it a constitutionally guaranteed right, and if you treated it the way you idiots want to treat the 2nd, not even then.

You don't need an amendment. Neither the state nor the federal government has a right to touch my body against my will. I have the right to decide for myself.

 

[Skylar]

I can grasp the concept, and I reject it as absurd.

Do we still use Bloodletting to treat and prevent disease?
Do we still believe the earth is the center of the universe?
Do we still believe a solar eclipse portends a disaster?

Do you understand the concept of stare decisis? Or do you reject that too?

Nowhere in Art. I, sec 8 is the power enumerated to give to the Federal Government to Regulate air corridors, build interstate highways or the transcontinental RR. In fact one failure of the Art. of Confederation was private sector control of roads, canals and bridges. Read some history, you might find out how absurd is the concept the strict constructionist.

However, clause #1 does provide for the Congress to "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the US; ..."

Hint, this is not the 18th Century! Things change, laws are passed by legislatures in cities, states and the Congress to mitigate problems which arise do to evolving social structures (e.g.). the Industrial revolution, rural vis a vis urban populations and fire power.

I'm pragmatic, you're an ideologue; the former thinks outside the box, the latter is stuck in one.

It isn't absurd. Strict construction-ism isn't literal construction-ism. That you have to pull that card out shows you either don't really understand it, or don't want to understand it.

One can account for changes in technology without using the amendment process, however when one changes concepts radically, or adds entirely new ones to the purview of the federal government, the amendment process has to be used.

Anything else is tyranny.

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

How about full auto? A SAW light machine gun? Maybe a nice 50 calibur?

How about grenades? Rocket launchers? Anti-personnel mines?

These are all cutting edge weapons of the standard infantry.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

The 9th and 14th amendment contradict that assumption. As you're using the constitution as an exhaustive list of rights. It isn't one. Its an exhaustive list of powers. And the lack of enumeration in the constitution doesn't mean that a right doesn't exist. As the 9th amendment make ludicrously clear.

Just as the Federalist Papers make it clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the constitution. And to overturn laws that violate it. With the 14th amendment extending this power to the States.

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Rights aren't powers. Nor vice versa. I have no problem with a government recognizing rights. As these are restrictions on government power.

We can eliminate grenades and such, as they are more like artillery, not arms. And crew serviced weapons are also usually not considered arms. What I dont see is government's right to say I can't concealed carry a 9mm handgun "because they feel like it". It's infringement.

But is it? Mortars would be more artillery. But grenades are hand thrown. A rifle is more artillery than a grenade is. Artillery is just large calibur guns. And a grenade isn't part of a gun. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment you're offering is the standard equipment of an infrantry man.

Grenades are pretty standard.

As are automatic weapons. SAW machine guns. Grenade launchers. Anti-personnel mines.

The constitution provides protection for rights, true, it does not create them. However it only protects the ones explicit in the document at the federal level, and incorporated to the states so the states can't prevent people from exercise protected rights in the federal document.

The constitution never says that it only protects those rights explicitly in the document. And I defy you to show me where in the constitution that passage is located. You'll find you imagined it.

On the contrary, the 9th amendment is quite clear that enumeration in the constitution is NOT a requirement for a right to exist.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

And of course you already know this. You've read the 9th amendment. Making your 'only those explicitly in the document' nonsense all the more bizarre. As nothing in the constitution or constitutional convention backs your narrative. And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts it.

Meaning you're wrong twice. The constitution is not, never was, nor was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of rights as you claim. Its an exhaustive list of powers.

However judges making up rights, and then considering it part of the document is laughable, unless you favor more power in the hands of less people. There is no reason other than "we wanted it" that allows the feds to say states cant ban abortion, or can't refuse to issue SSM licenses, its the will of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers, nothing more.

The 9th amendment makes it clear that there are unenumerated rights held by the people. These rights, like any enumerated in the constitution, would limit government action. And the judiciary is cited by the Federalist Paper as the body to interpret the constitution. And decide when a given law violates it.

Far from 'laughable', defining the limits of government power under the constitution is the role and sacred duty of the government. You favor government power over rights....if that government is the State.

And as the 14th amendment makes clear, the State doesn't have the authority to violate the privileges or immunities of Federal citizens. Which every American is.

As I said, you don't favor liberty over government coersion....if that government is the State. You actively favor such coersino

 

[Ravi]

Finally, medical abortions should be covered by insurance, but if its for belated birth control, out of your own pocket please.

Why is that? Why can I not buy a policy that covers a legal medical procedure because you don't like it?

My mistake, I meant to mean government funds, not private insurance.

So if I am forced to pay into Medicaid for 10 years I don't have a right to use it if I need it in the manner that I need it?

 

[martybegan]

you grasp that constitutional issue ass backwards, but what else is new...?

pity the cake bakers who would like the big gubmint hammer to protect the right to publicly punish people they don't like.

Nope, I favor liberty over government coercion.

You really don't. You favor government coersion over liberty....if that government is the State government.

Take abortion. Currently its a protected right. But you feel that the right should be stripped of the people, that the liberty of a woman to make her own reproductive choices should be taken from her. With the State granted the authority to take that right and turn it into a crime.

That's not 'liberty over government coercion'. That's just plain government coercion.

Not sure why Marty doesn't get that concept. A tyrannical government is a tyrannical government no matter if federal, state, or local. And under our constitution, a state cannot take away a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Abortion isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a figment made up by some guys in robes, nothing more. Shift the balance of the court and its gone, poof.

An amendment would make it a constitutionally guaranteed right, and if you treated it the way you idiots want to treat the 2nd, not even then.

You don't need an amendment. Neither the state nor the federal government has a right to touch my body against my will. I have the right to decide for myself.

yet forcing bakers to bake cakes, is A-OK, interesting.

 

[martybegan]

Finally, medical abortions should be covered by insurance, but if its for belated birth control, out of your own pocket please.

Why is that? Why can I not buy a policy that covers a legal medical procedure because you don't like it?

My mistake, I meant to mean government funds, not private insurance.

So if I am forced to pay into Medicare for 10 years I don't have a right to use it if I need it in the manner that I need it?

Does medicare cover elective procedures not medically necessary? That's what abortion for birth control is.

Split the costs with the father, sue him for it, you won't here me complain about that at all.

 

[Valerie]

Actually I wouldn't vote for an abortion ban if given the choice. My issue is with the process, not the end result in this case. To me, if its before the 3rd trimester, have at it. After that, only in cases of medical need. Plus, parents of minors should at least be informed their kid is getting one. Finally, medical abortions should be covered by insurance, but if its for belated birth control, out of your own pocket please.

that's great marty, but this thread is about the GOP and you post in this thread in their defense...

the GOP VP nominee in 2012 and the current GOP speaker of the house Paul Ryan actively advocates legislation that would have government impose personhood protections at every sexual conception...

only an idiotic ideologue doesn't understand what is at issue with this type of emotional pandering.

 

[Ravi]

Nope, I favor liberty over government coercion.

You really don't. You favor government coersion over liberty....if that government is the State government.

Take abortion. Currently its a protected right. But you feel that the right should be stripped of the people, that the liberty of a woman to make her own reproductive choices should be taken from her. With the State granted the authority to take that right and turn it into a crime.

That's not 'liberty over government coercion'. That's just plain government coercion.

Not sure why Marty doesn't get that concept. A tyrannical government is a tyrannical government no matter if federal, state, or local. And under our constitution, a state cannot take away a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Abortion isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a figment made up by some guys in robes, nothing more. Shift the balance of the court and its gone, poof.

An amendment would make it a constitutionally guaranteed right, and if you treated it the way you idiots want to treat the 2nd, not even then.

You don't need an amendment. Neither the state nor the federal government has a right to touch my body against my will. I have the right to decide for myself.

yet forcing bakers to bake cakes, is A-OK, interesting.

Wait, you think the state should issue licenses for people to have sex like they do to people that engage in business?