The Constitution -- Merely A Guide?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
-

[/QUOTE]
To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
-

too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."

Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte

hmm...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
-

too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."

Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte

hmm...

too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
-

To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."

LOL it's a given you have NOT read that book, otherwise...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
-

To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."

LOL it's a given you have NOT read that book, otherwise...

[/QUOTE]

when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

poor, special Ed

please, allow us to offer a helping hand, and not a handout:
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

poor, special Ed

please, allow us to offer a helping hand, and not a handout:
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

for 5th time: when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

truly amazing this Special Ed. It's a wonder he's allowed to go online without supervision.

Oh it's Special Ed. so an explanation is in order: supervision as in supervise, not as in super vision

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

truly amazing this Special Ed. It's a wonder he's allowed to go online without supervision.

Oh it's Special Ed. so an explanation is in order: supervision as in supervise, not as in super vision

for 6th time: when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

truly amazing this Special Ed. It's a wonder he's allowed to go online without supervision.

Oh it's Special Ed. so an explanation is in order: supervision as in supervise, not as in super vision

for 6th time: when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.

Special Ed, the next time you want to mouth off about the Jeffersonian Republicans (Democratic-Republicans) look up the name of John Beckley, then NEVER EVER interrupt the teacher when class is in session.
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hey, Special Ed? Did you engine search (Google) Beckley yet?



on edit: a pity post:

American National Biography Online Beckley John James

look! You'll see Cunninghan's name again. you know, the guy whose book you inferred you've read

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

truly amazing this Special Ed. It's a wonder he's allowed to go online without supervision.

Oh it's Special Ed. so an explanation is in order: supervision as in supervise, not as in super vision

for 6th time: when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.

Special Ed, the next time you want to mouth off about the Jeffersonian Republicans (Democratic-Republicans) look up the name of John Beckley, then NEVER EVER interrupt the teacher when class is in session.
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

for 7th time: when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.

 

[emilynghiem]

Has the Constitution become merely a guide, and not the law of our founding principles? What about The Bill of Rights? Have we made detours around the Constitution in order to better serve this nation and her citizens? Have we allowed the Constitution to be interpreted, in order to make adjustments based on current events and changing times? Have we altered the intent of the Constitution, in order to accommodate a select group, or a self-serving cause?

Considerations have been given to gun control, restrictive lawful assembly, restrictive prayer and religious applications, discrimination based on appearance, search and seizure authority, restrictive free speech, the legal invasion of privacy, tax collection and distribution of taxes, restrictive displaying of the American flag, the lack of government transparency, abusive use of eminent domain, and executive power.

EXAMPLES:
Report Finds No Substitute for Mass Data Collection -- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/u...lk-collection-of-phone-data.html?ref=politics

Republicans Resist Obama’s Move to Dismantle Apparatus of Deportation -- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/secure-communities-immigration-program-battle.html?ref=us
The program, which generated the majority of the 2.3 million deportations under the Obama administration, is at the center of the battle between the president and Republicans over his executive actions to transform the deportation system.


Your Thoughts ?

Hi Sonny Clark
It has become a matter of
* who can hire a legal team to present and WIN an argument in Court. So lawyers and judges have become the new Priests and Popes who decide what the laws mean and what is mandated for the people.

* who can lobby key issues in the MEDIA such as the LGBT issue and make policy by public pressure.

Notice: Annise Parker as Mayor of Houston did not invest any time or money into helping the BLACKS discriminated against in losing National History next door to city hall. Parker received contributions from the LGBT community as far away as San Francisco, CA, so was paid to represent THOSE interests. And made unilateral changes to policies for the LGBT interests, but nothing to help the other minorities that have been waiting longer for justice. LGBT people were never considered 3/5 persons by law, and subject to ownership as property of banks, owners and mortgages.

But the Freed Slaves and their descendants that have been fighting to reverse the abuse of eminent domain to take away private property are still waiting for justice.

Sonny, as long as the legal system is based on "statutes of limitations" and the clock doesn't start when you FIND a lawyer willing to help, then people like the community in Freedmen's Town LOSE RIGHTS for lack of legal defense.
These residents did not commit a crime. If they had and the charges were against them, they would have FREE legal defense paid for by the state. But because the seizure of land by govt is not considered a crime, they were required to SUE to protest the theft of the land by govt abusing taxpayer money and public authority.

This has been going on long before I volunteered there, but is a PRIME example of how the legal system has become the new kritocracy or rule by judges. Because of the conflicts of interest and "govt immunity" this is why nobody challenges the system.

 

[emilynghiem]

truly amazing this Special Ed. It's a wonder he's allowed to go online without supervision.

Oh it's Special Ed. so an explanation is in order: supervision as in supervise, not as in super vision

for 6th time: when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.

Special Ed, the next time you want to mouth off about the Jeffersonian Republicans (Democratic-Republicans) look up the name of John Beckley, then NEVER EVER interrupt the teacher when class is in session.
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

for 7th time: when is the idiot liberal going to tell us who he thinks had most to do, if not Jefferson, with formation of party( often call Jeffersonian Republican Party) that Jefferson led? See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.

It's based on free choice to do what you want until you are forced by law, by govt, by a police officer, or a lawsuit and court order.

Govt is the God of liberals. So this is the divine authority that tells them right from wrong. That's why they want to control this God so they can get what they want, and other people (whose money and labor also goes into the public pool) don't count unless their beliefs agree.

If their beliefs disagree, Liberals yell for separation of church and state to remove the offending policy. But if it's the other way, if opponents claim their beliefs are infringed upon, the Liberals say "too bad the collective good is more important than your free choice."
Which is not what they say when it comes to abortion, where free choice is more important. With health care, nope, no choice, except what the Liberals believe constitutes freedom. You can force businesses to pay for birth control and that counts as freedom. But you can't go invest your money into medical school programs instead of insurance, that's not a choice, and you'd get penalized for that!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Jefferson is also famous for having said:[2]

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.​

Thomas DiLorenzo - RationalWiki

 

[emilynghiem]

Jefferson is also famous for having said:[2]

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.​

Thomas DiLorenzo - RationalWiki

YES, Dante
And when the "institutions advance and make changes with the times"
it is by CONSENT. Things change when someone's CONSENT is left out, and that group petitions for their interests or objections to be included in policy instead of excluded. It would not make sense to change things where it then violates or excludes other people's consent, because that wouldn't fix the problem but replace it with a different conflict that has to be worked out again. Why not resolve all objections and conflicts, as they arise, and get the laws written and passed by consent? Why try to push bills through KNOWING there are fundamental objections.

When a law or contract is changed, it should be by the MUTUAL consent of the parties affected.
NOT by some elite faction that abuses the media to tell other people what the terms need to change to, and won't take into account their input, perspectives and effect on people being overruled.

Democratic process is not about one group bullying another "by majority rule"
as the parties would have it.

Jefferson did believe there was some element of "divine providence."
That sometimes public policy should not be left to public opinion,
but that God might bestow certain duties or wisdom on the leaders of govt
to make decisions that aren't to be swayed by "pandering to what is popular."

That is probably where the left and right part ways and distrust the other:
The Left distrusts when the Right believes that God ordains some things
and that govt is supposed to serve that higher truth, regardless of those whose beliefs disagree.
Likewise, the Right distrusts when the Left tries to dictate "the will of the people" and mandate public policy based on what they deem to be politically correct agenda, even in conflict with half the nation.

both the left and right have a different way of justifying
when it is okay to override the dissent of the opposing views.
That is where they both claim the other is abusing govt to establish
private political agenda; whether this imposition on the public
is blamed on religious bias, or political secular beliefs.

It's still the same complaint.

The REAL issue, Dante, is whether the group that is pushing their religious or political agenda
is one that you align with or not.

And Govt laws are not supposed to be determined by "which group's beliefs are more popular"
or have more members to push that through.

Does it make a difference if the belief set being pushed onto the public
is religious, secular or political in its expression?

Isn't a belief by any other name still a belief?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Jefferson is also famous for having said:[2]

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.​

Thomas DiLorenzo - RationalWiki

YES, Dante
And when the "institutions advance and make changes with the times"
it is by CONSENT. Things change when someone's CONSENT is left out, and that group petitions for their interests or objections to be included in policy instead of excluded. It would not make sense to change things where it then violates or excludes other people's consent, because that wouldn't fix the problem but replace it with a different conflict that has to be worked out again. Why not resolve all objections and conflicts, as they arise, and get the laws written and passed by consent? Why try to push bills through KNOWING there are fundamental objections.

When a law or contract is changed, it should be by the MUTUAL consent of the parties affected.
NOT by some elite faction that abuses the media to tell other people what the terms need to change to, and won't take into account their input, perspectives and effect on people being overruled.

Democratic process is not about one group bullying another "by majority rule"
as the parties would have it.

Jefferson did believe there was some element of "divine providence."
That sometimes public policy should not be left to public opinion,
but that God might bestow certain duties or wisdom on the leaders of govt
to make decisions that aren't to be swayed by "pandering to what is popular."

That is probably where the left and right part ways and distrust the other:
The Left distrusts when the Right believes that God ordains some things
and that govt is supposed to serve that higher truth, regardless of those whose beliefs disagree.
Likewise, the Right distrusts when the Left tries to dictate "the will of the people" and mandate public policy based on what they deem to be politically correct agenda, even in conflict with half the nation.

both the left and right have a different way of justifying
when it is okay to override the dissent of the opposing views.
That is where they both claim the other is abusing govt to establish
private political agenda; whether this imposition on the public
is blamed on religious bias, or political secular beliefs.

It's still the same complaint.

The REAL issue, Dante, is whether the group that is pushing their religious or political agenda
is one that you align with or not.

And Govt laws are not supposed to be determined by "which group's beliefs are more popular"
or have more members to push that through.

Does it make a difference if the belief set being pushed onto the public
is religious, secular or political in its expression?

Isn't a belief by any other name still a belief?

consensus, look it up. you can't please everybody. it's irrational

 

[Sonny Clark]

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
-

too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."

Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte

hmm...

I put him on "ignore" a couple of months ago. He's the only one that I've put on ignore. You can imagine why. It's like trying to reason with a fence post. And, he can't conduct a conversation without "look dear", or some other ridiculous remark. His name calling and personal attacks account for 99% of his conversations. Good luck with him. I failed in my attempts to have meaningful conversations with him. Finally, I gave up, which is very rare for me.

 

[emilynghiem]

Jefferson is also famous for having said:[2]

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.​

Thomas DiLorenzo - RationalWiki

YES, Dante
And when the "institutions advance and make changes with the times"
it is by CONSENT. Things change when someone's CONSENT is left out, and that group petitions for their interests or objections to be included in policy instead of excluded. It would not make sense to change things where it then violates or excludes other people's consent, because that wouldn't fix the problem but replace it with a different conflict that has to be worked out again. Why not resolve all objections and conflicts, as they arise, and get the laws written and passed by consent? Why try to push bills through KNOWING there are fundamental objections.

When a law or contract is changed, it should be by the MUTUAL consent of the parties affected.
NOT by some elite faction that abuses the media to tell other people what the terms need to change to, and won't take into account their input, perspectives and effect on people being overruled.

Democratic process is not about one group bullying another "by majority rule"
as the parties would have it.

Jefferson did believe there was some element of "divine providence."
That sometimes public policy should not be left to public opinion,
but that God might bestow certain duties or wisdom on the leaders of govt
to make decisions that aren't to be swayed by "pandering to what is popular."

That is probably where the left and right part ways and distrust the other:
The Left distrusts when the Right believes that God ordains some things
and that govt is supposed to serve that higher truth, regardless of those whose beliefs disagree.
Likewise, the Right distrusts when the Left tries to dictate "the will of the people" and mandate public policy based on what they deem to be politically correct agenda, even in conflict with half the nation.

both the left and right have a different way of justifying
when it is okay to override the dissent of the opposing views.
That is where they both claim the other is abusing govt to establish
private political agenda; whether this imposition on the public
is blamed on religious bias, or political secular beliefs.

It's still the same complaint.

The REAL issue, Dante, is whether the group that is pushing their religious or political agenda
is one that you align with or not.

And Govt laws are not supposed to be determined by "which group's beliefs are more popular"
or have more members to push that through.

Does it make a difference if the belief set being pushed onto the public
is religious, secular or political in its expression?

Isn't a belief by any other name still a belief?

consensus, look it up. you can't please everybody. it's irrational

Look up mediation. It's not about pleasing everyone.
It's about resolving conflicts that get in the way.

For example, suppose you have 12 people who are sharing a house.
7 want all the walls white and 5 want all the walls black.
So they paint their bedrooms different, to get what they want.
And they work out some of the other shared rooms to be black, white or a mix.

The whole house isn't all white or all black.
That's not what consensus means.

It means agreeing which rooms are private and people can paint them what they want.
And which are shared which means they have to decide together what goes on there.
And if they REALLY can't share the space together, they can look at moving into separate spaces rather than fighting to control each other in the same space.

Most of the fighting is freaking out and not trusting that the other people
sharing the same house aren't going to take it over and run it their way,
because they don't trust the other people either!

They can also agree to move out and get separate houses and do what they want there.
Most of mediation is facilitating what people can do separately and what has to be done jointly.
And if they don't agree, then find a way to separate.

Heck, why not pay people to leave and get their own space.
Some parents end up doing that to get grown up kids to leave.
It's less hassle in the long run, rather than fight under the same roof
when people don't agree on the rules.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Actually, historical facts are Thomas Jefferson had little to do with the formation of the party he was ultimately to lead.
-

too stupid if true you would not be so afraid to say who had most to do with formation of Republican Party in 1793! What do we learn from your fear?

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


To begin the liberals education on basics of American history!!:
"The Jeffersonian Republicans( the formation of Party organization (1789-1801) by Noble E. Cunningham,Jr."

Hmm, maybe, just maybe Dante will do a remedial learner's class just for the 'special' ones like EdwardBaiamonte

hmm...

I put him on "ignore" a couple of months ago. He's the only one that I've put on ignore. You can imagine why. It's like trying to reason with a fence post. And, he can't conduct a conversation without "look dear", or some other ridiculous remark. His name calling and personal attacks account for 99% of his conversations. Good luck with him. I failed in my attempts to have meaningful conversations with him. Finally, I gave up, which is very rare for me.

Dante said Jefferson had little to do with formation of Jeffersonian Republican Party.
What does that suggest to you about his liberal IQ??