Right Wingers and the US Constitution

[Procrustes Stretched]

And Darkwind gives the typical far right reactionary defense to cover their own agenda and grab for power.

The extremes threaten America now more than in 1860m

methinks you give this pathetic darkwind(blows moist air?) far too much credit for being able to lay anything coherent out

 

[eagle1462010]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3_95F5e-Ac]Obama Win Causes Obsessed Backers To See How Empty Lives Are - YouTube[/ame]

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And Darkwind gives the typical far right reactionary defense to cover their own agenda and grab for power.

The extremes threaten America now more than in 1860m

methinks you give this pathetic darkwind(blows moist air?) far too much credit for being able to lay anything coherent out

While you and Fakey give each other rim jobs, the fact remains, you don't have clue one about the Constitution you are attempting to discuss. And Fakey is just as clueless about what conservatives (whom assholes like him mistakenly or dishonestly attempt to label "reactionaries") think.

 

[eagle1462010]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnX-D4kkPOQ]Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Erand7899]

Right Winger .. Left Winger?
Fringe both.

Very knowledgeable?

Believing something to be true does not make it so. Most everyone on the right who uses the US Constitution as a shield in argument is as ignorant as the old right wingers who used patriotism as a shield.

Fringe people are reactionaries, but reading and carrying around a copy of the US Constitution in ones pocket does not guarantee reading and comprehension skills or understanding of concepts necessary for informed and intelligent conversation, let alone debate

The only thing that guarantees comprehension skills is comprehension skills.

There are two forms to the United States Constitution. The original itself, and the one created by two hundred plus years of political interpretation and judicial activism. The original is easy to read and comprehend by anyone with normal skills. The second is a contorted version that requires highly specialized constitutional lawyers to read and comprehend.

then you are saying most Americans and especially reactionary Americans, lack the most basic normal skills? there is hope for you yet

No, I didn't say that at all. Refer back to reading comprehension skills. Most functionally literate people can read and comprehend the original constitution, and its amendments, and can form a good understanding of the intentions of the framers. Its takes highly trained and specialized lawyers to twist that simple language into the legal morass that we have today.

For instance, the phrase "Congress shall make no laws respecting..." is simple for even a grade school student to understand. It takes some real smart lawyers to twist that simple statement into "Congress shall make no laws respecting..., unless congress thinks that making a law respecting... is good public policy."

 

[Londoner]

Right Wingers and the US Constitution

they tend to talk about it lots and supposedly carry pocket versions, but yet they still have issues with comprehension?

crazy. It's crazy that anyone takes a right winger seriously

Members of the Reagan team intervened in Carter's hostage negotiations in order to disrupt the release of the hostages - which release they felt would destroy their chances of unseating Carter, who was aligned with an alternative energy movement seeking to disentangle the USA from Middle Eastern terror regimes. Carter claimed that the planet's diminishing petroleum reserves would have disastrous political, economic and national security implications - and leave the US economy hostage to big oil and the middle east. He asked the nation to build a "moonshot" around using less oil so that we could better protect our standard of living from rising oil costs. Problem was that Reagan was heavily financed by big oil, a movement which could not relinquish its middle eastern oil partnerships, and which did not want competition in the energy market, or conservation (both of which would lower big oil profits). This is why the partnership between Reagan and Iran (revealed in the Iran-Contra Scandal) was so treasonous (and beyond anti-constitutional). The Reagan Big Oil movement (centered around relationships with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq - as well as minor relationships with the Taliban and mujahideen) would not only make terrorism stronger, but it would erect an economy-destroying monopoly over the world's most important resource: energy.

Here is where it gets truly criminal and creepy. Reagan was the first president to declare a war on terrorism. He did this while secretly selling weapons to world's leading terrorist nation, and ramping up aid to Saudi Arabia, along with quietly removing Hussein's Iraq from the official list of terrorist regimes. He did this so he could ramp up financial and weapons aid to Hussein in hopes of hedging his many bets in the region. Many of the figures in the Reagan intelligence and defense apparatus would later serve under Bush 43 to launch the second war on terror. It was pure propaganda on a level that would do the old Soviet Union proud.

To understand the Reagan ascendancy (which was still in power under Bush 43), you need to understand all the complicated relationships between the GOP and Big Oil and the Middle East. The fact that the Reagan Revolution was launched in and through a partnership with Iran is just the tip of the iceberg. From energy policy to deficits and financial deregulation to starting wars under false pretenses, this movement has not only shredded the constitution, it destroyed a great nation in 30 short years.

 

[regent]

The only thing that guarantees comprehension skills is comprehension skills.

There are two forms to the United States Constitution. The original itself, and the one created by two hundred plus years of political interpretation and judicial activism. The original is easy to read and comprehend by anyone with normal skills. The second is a contorted version that requires highly specialized constitutional lawyers to read and comprehend.

then you are saying most Americans and especially reactionary Americans, lack the most basic normal skills? there is hope for you yet

No, I didn't say that at all. Refer back to reading comprehension skills. Most functionally literate people can read and comprehend the original constitution, and its amendments, and can form a good understanding of the intentions of the framers. Its takes highly trained and specialized lawyers to twist that simple language into the legal morass that we have today.

For instance, the phrase "Congress shall make no laws respecting..." is simple for even a grade school student to understand. It takes some real smart lawyers to twist that simple statement into "Congress shall make no laws respecting..., unless congress thinks that making a law respecting... is good public policy."

So did that mean states can make laws respecting...? Or how about counties or cities making laws?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

then you are saying most Americans and especially reactionary Americans, lack the most basic normal skills? there is hope for you yet

No, I didn't say that at all. Refer back to reading comprehension skills. Most functionally literate people can read and comprehend the original constitution, and its amendments, and can form a good understanding of the intentions of the framers. Its takes highly trained and specialized lawyers to twist that simple language into the legal morass that we have today.

For instance, the phrase "Congress shall make no laws respecting..." is simple for even a grade school student to understand. It takes some real smart lawyers to twist that simple statement into "Congress shall make no laws respecting..., unless congress thinks that making a law respecting... is good public policy."

So did that mean states can make laws respecting...? Or how about counties or cities making laws?

Whether the STATES (and its political sub-divisions) "could" do so or not was not a matter to which the United States Constitution was addressed.

The individual States each had their OWN Constitutions, you see.

Later on, many of the specific prohibitions against Federal Government jurisdiction relative to the rights of the people WERE "incorporated" by virtue of the 14th Amendment so that it can NOW be accurately said that many of those restrictions DO prohibit similar STATE behavior.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Right Winger .. Left Winger?
Fringe both.

Very knowledgeable?

Believing something to be true does not make it so. Most everyone on the right who uses the US Constitution as a shield in argument is as ignorant as the old right wingers who used patriotism as a shield.

Fringe people are reactionaries, but reading and carrying around a copy of the US Constitution in ones pocket does not guarantee reading and comprehension skills or understanding of concepts necessary for informed and intelligent conversation, let alone debate

Your unabashed ignorance is remarkable.

coming from an ignoramus as big as you, I'm flabbergasted.

thanks, this hasn't happened in ages

Gee, your originality is astonishing.
You simply decided that non libs know nothing of the Constitution and then ran with that theory.
You are out of gas.
Your agenda is that the Constitution gets in the way of the liberal agenda. And that galls you to the point of distraction.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Huge Fail!

A fail because as it turns out those buses still need oil?

Petroleum, gasoline...not lube jobs,.

FAIL

Let's see. The bus is painted. Guess what? Paint is made with petroleum derivatives. The synthetic materials that make up the interior. Most synthetic materials are based in petro-chemicals.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What is it specifically about the Constitution that turns left wing Americans into slobbering idiots? Does it get in the way of the progressive agenda? Look at the stuff the mad left wing anti-war idiots were saying about the former president.

what percentage of Americans protested the war in the streets?

Very small. On the other hand, who gives a fuck.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole? - YouTube

Ain't satire great?!!!!

 

[thereisnospoon]

then you are saying most Americans and especially reactionary Americans, lack the most basic normal skills? there is hope for you yet

No, I didn't say that at all. Refer back to reading comprehension skills. Most functionally literate people can read and comprehend the original constitution, and its amendments, and can form a good understanding of the intentions of the framers. Its takes highly trained and specialized lawyers to twist that simple language into the legal morass that we have today.

For instance, the phrase "Congress shall make no laws respecting..." is simple for even a grade school student to understand. It takes some real smart lawyers to twist that simple statement into "Congress shall make no laws respecting..., unless congress thinks that making a law respecting... is good public policy."

So did that mean states can make laws respecting...? Or how about counties or cities making laws?

No....This is where the Supremacy Clause applies.
No state or municipality may create a law that would be in violation of the US Constitution. Moreover, no state or municipality may enact any law the is in contravention to federal law.
For example, the AZ and SC immigration laws. Though AZ was challenged actually SUED by the Obama DOJ, the suit has no merit because AZ law mirrors federal law. AZ law does not supersede federal law. It merely affirms the federal law. Had the AZ law overstepped or ignored federal law, the Supremacy Clause would be applied.

 

[Political Junky]

Show me where it doesn't use oil.

Do those bearings lubricate themselves?

Idiot.

Huge Fail!

A fail because as it turns out those buses still need oil?

Even poor cons defend big oil. Go figure.

 

[thereisnospoon]

huge fail!

a fail because as it turns out those buses still need oil?

even poor cons defend big oil. Go figure.

huh?

 

[regent]

No, I didn't say that at all. Refer back to reading comprehension skills. Most functionally literate people can read and comprehend the original constitution, and its amendments, and can form a good understanding of the intentions of the framers. Its takes highly trained and specialized lawyers to twist that simple language into the legal morass that we have today.

For instance, the phrase "Congress shall make no laws respecting..." is simple for even a grade school student to understand. It takes some real smart lawyers to twist that simple statement into "Congress shall make no laws respecting..., unless congress thinks that making a law respecting... is good public policy."

So did that mean states can make laws respecting...? Or how about counties or cities making laws?

No....This is where the Supremacy Clause applies.
No state or municipality may create a law that would be in violation of the US Constitution. Moreover, no state or municipality may enact any law the is in contravention to federal law.
For example, the AZ and SC immigration laws. Though AZ was challenged actually SUED by the Obama DOJ, the suit has no merit because AZ law mirrors federal law. AZ law does not supersede federal law. It merely affirms the federal law. Had the AZ law overstepped or ignored federal law, the Supremacy Clause would be applied.

The Bill of Rights originally applied to the national government not state governments. Under the 14th Amendment 1868 the Supreme Court gradually began applying the Bill of Rights to the state governments, called incorporation. The second amendment was recently incorporated 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago. So the second amendment no applies to state and city governments.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Right Wingers and the US Constitution

they tend to talk about it lots and supposedly carry pocket versions, but yet they still have issues with comprehension?

I hear right wingers say so many things about our form of government and system of politics, and most of them are distorted versions of truth or outright bogus lies. Now we have more than one right winger @ usmb shouting out their ignorance for all the world to see

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/296334-harry-reid-should-be-impeached-3.html#post7308013

crazy. It's crazy that anyone takes a right winger seriously

The problem is conservatives, for the most part, are ignorant of, or exhibit contempt for, Constitutional case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Right Wingers and the US Constitution

they tend to talk about it lots and supposedly carry pocket versions, but yet they still have issues with comprehension?

I hear right wingers say so many things about our form of government and system of politics, and most of them are distorted versions of truth or outright bogus lies. Now we have more than one right winger @ usmb shouting out their ignorance for all the world to see

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/296334-harry-reid-should-be-impeached-3.html#post7308013

crazy. It's crazy that anyone takes a right winger seriously

The problem is conservatives, for the most part, are ignorant of, or exhibit contempt for, Constitutional case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

^ stunningly clear example of the murky, erroneous "thinking" of many modern American "liberals."

Twits like Adam_Clayton actually BELIEVE that the Constitution only exists in the context of case law.

What sadly and wholly pathetic bullshit.

 

[Erand7899]

then you are saying most Americans and especially reactionary Americans, lack the most basic normal skills? there is hope for you yet

No, I didn't say that at all. Refer back to reading comprehension skills. Most functionally literate people can read and comprehend the original constitution, and its amendments, and can form a good understanding of the intentions of the framers. Its takes highly trained and specialized lawyers to twist that simple language into the legal morass that we have today.

For instance, the phrase "Congress shall make no laws respecting..." is simple for even a grade school student to understand. It takes some real smart lawyers to twist that simple statement into "Congress shall make no laws respecting..., unless congress thinks that making a law respecting... is good public policy."

So did that mean states can make laws respecting...? Or how about counties or cities making laws?

Until the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment made the individual rights delineated in the Constitution applicable to the states, states were only bound by their own constitutions. Counties and cities are also subject to the individual rights delineated by the U.S. Constitution and are governed by their state constitutions, and their state laws.

 

[regent]

Is a law constitutional until struck down by the courts?