The Lawlessness and Legal Ambiguity caused by Progressivism

[The2ndAmendment]

This article is not focused on the Obama Third Term Article, it's just mentioned in the introduction as a current example of the problem.

Recently there was an article by a NYU Professor calling for Obama's Third Term.

Instantly, many Progressives shouted down the fears and hysteria over this article, citing that the 22nd Amendment would prevent Obama from becoming a third term President.

----------------------------------------------------

What you Progressives don't seem to realize, is that your bizarre and wild interpretations of constitutional provisions that greatly differ from the common and plain meaning of those provisions --- and this is what has caused such hysteria in the right wing and Libertarian camps.

You Progressives actually try to dispute the meaning of:

"Congress shall make no Law."
"Shall not be infringed."
"No Warrant shall issue."
"Public Use"

and many other phrases in the Constitution.

To the common and simple person, those above four phrases (and countless others), can ONLY have ONE meaning.

Yet, whenever these common and plain meaning phrases become an obstacle to the Progressive agenda, all of sudden, the ivory tower intellectual elites and their herd of useful idiots start to challenge the established and plain meaning of these phrases as understood by the Several States upon the ratification of the Constitution.

Many of you even have the audacity to declare that the USA is a democracy, even though the Constitution expressly forbids democracy in Article IV, Section 4, establishing that the USA is a Republic, and that all others Forms of Government are EXPRESSLY forbidden.

------------------------------------------------------

So, when you cite the 22nd Amendment in its common and plain meaning as being a barrier against Obama's Third Term, it is INANE.

We cannot trust that Progressives and their swarm of locusts will adhere to the common and plain meaning of the 22nd Amendment if it became an obstacle to their agenda.
------------------------------------------------------

Progressives, by overturning and assailing Constitutional Precedent since 1913, have created an atmosphere of LAWLESSNESS and Legal uncertainty. The Constitution is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land when the Progressives are obstructed by it.

Yes, you are the Party of Lawlessness.

This is why we shall not allow you to confiscate out firearms.

Molon Labe.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Better then having NO law under your belief system.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Better then having NO law under your belief system.

What is my belief system?

Also, Law --- less --- ness = No Law.

How can "No Law" be better than "Lawlessness" when "No Law = Lawlessness"

The relationship A = B and A > B is impossible.

 

[occupied]

Are you for real? This post is almost a caricature of a paranoid RW rant.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Better then having NO law under your belief system.

When the laws are suspended or ignored by executive fiat, how can it be said that you have any law?

 

[Nyvin]

Rep. Jose Serrano introduces legislation to repeal the 22nd amendment every 2 years, and has since 1997, he just did last January.

The 22nd amendment was ratified in the early 50's...it's not like it was part of the original constitution or something. If people like a president and want to elect him again, let them! As long as the elections are fair who cares? Why should we stop the people from electing who they want to elect?

 

[occupied]

Better then having NO law under your belief system.

When the laws are suspended or ignored by executive fiat, how can it be said that you have any law?

No conservative has ever had the least respect for the law if it protects their opponents/scapegoats/intended victims. Even today they have nothing but horror at the thought of due process for the working class accused or conversely if some rich man actually gets charged with some white collar crime. Equal protection is a dirty word in your book. The real test of respect for the law lies where it protects the regular everyday citizen from abuse of power and conservatives fail that test every single day of the week.

If the president has actually broken the law it is the duty of congress to impeach him, why not? The question answers itself.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Better then having NO law under your belief system.

When the laws are suspended or ignored by executive fiat, how can it be said that you have any law?

No conservative has ever had the least respect for the law if it protects their opponents/scapegoats/intended victims. Even today they have nothing but horror at the thought of due process for the working class accused or conversely if some rich man actually gets charged with some white collar crime. Equal protection is a dirty word in your book. The real test of respect for the law lies where it protects the regular everyday citizen from abuse of power and conservatives fail that test every single day of the week.

Helluva gaggle of straw men you've constructed there.

If the president has actually broken the law it is the duty of congress to impeach him, why not? The question answers itself.

If the HoR impeached Dear Obie, where would the trial be held and what is the political makeup of that venue?

Not really that bright bright are you?

 

[occupied]

When the laws are suspended or ignored by executive fiat, how can it be said that you have any law?

No conservative has ever had the least respect for the law if it protects their opponents/scapegoats/intended victims. Even today they have nothing but horror at the thought of due process for the working class accused or conversely if some rich man actually gets charged with some white collar crime. Equal protection is a dirty word in your book. The real test of respect for the law lies where it protects the regular everyday citizen from abuse of power and conservatives fail that test every single day of the week.

Helluva gaggle of straw men you've constructed there.

If the president has actually broken the law it is the duty of congress to impeach him, why not? The question answers itself.

If the HoR impeached Dear Obie, where would the trial be held and what is the political makeup of that venue?

Not really that bright bright are you?

Bright enough to know that if the shoe were on the other foot as it was 8 years ago you would say exactly the same thing I just did because everything Obama has done Bush did and set precedent as allowable behavior to the executive. The real thrust of my comments were the first paragraph you just blew off, conservatives have an awfully flexible respect for the law when it comes to who is protected and who is punished and how.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

No conservative has ever had the least respect for the law if it protects their opponents/scapegoats/intended victims. Even today they have nothing but horror at the thought of due process for the working class accused or conversely if some rich man actually gets charged with some white collar crime. Equal protection is a dirty word in your book. The real test of respect for the law lies where it protects the regular everyday citizen from abuse of power and conservatives fail that test every single day of the week.

Helluva gaggle of straw men you've constructed there.

If the president has actually broken the law it is the duty of congress to impeach him, why not? The question answers itself.

If the HoR impeached Dear Obie, where would the trial be held and what is the political makeup of that venue?

Not really that bright bright are you?

Bright enough to know that if the shoe were on the other foot as it was 8 years ago you would say exactly the same thing I just did because everything Obama has done Bush did and set precedent as allowable behavior to the executive. The real thrust of my comments were the first paragraph you just blew off, conservatives have an awfully flexible respect for the law when it comes to who is protected and who is punished and how.

Actually, I detested Bush. He was an extremely poor excuse for a supposed conservative.

The real thrust of your comments are founded in sheer ignorance and arrogant prejudice. Par for the course for a blindly partisan tool.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Basically

 

[asaratis]

Liberals ("Progressives") and Conservatives alike cherish the ambiguity of written law. It lends itself to frivolous lawsuits and increases the funds that lawyers are able to extract from those needing their services...both as plaintiffs and defendants.

Rep. Jose Serrano introduces legislation to repeal the 22nd amendment every 2 years, and has since 1997, he just did last January.

The 22nd amendment was ratified in the early 50's...it's not like it was part of the original constitution or something. If people like a president and want to elect him again, let them! As long as the elections are fair who cares? Why should we stop the people from electing who they want to elect?

Because it may lead to a tyranical dictator that "manages" to get elected for life. Our first President saw this possibility and set the precedent of two terms and out. FDR would have liked to become President forever. The public concern over such a possibility called for the 22nd Amendment. It should NEVER be repealed. I can't imagine much if anything could be as damaging to this nation as third Obama term. And I can imagine that the liberals, Marxists and communists in this country would like nothing more.

I support a similar rule for congressmen...say, 4 terms and you're out...forevermore. There should be no lifetime SCOTUS chairs either.

FDR?s third-term decision and the 22nd amendment

On July 18, 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt accepted his party’s nomination to run for a third term in office—an unprecedented act that would be barred by a constitutional amendment a decade later.

Roosevelt’s decision, made as the United States neared its entry into World War II, dominated his election campaign against the Republican contender, Wendell Wilkie. In the end, Roosevelt won the election by a wide margin, and he was able to win a fourth election in 1944.

But the popular fallout about the concept of a long-term president led to the ratification of the 22nd amendment in 1951.

“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once,” the amendment read, in a clear reference to Roosevelt.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Rep. Jose Serrano introduces legislation to repeal the 22nd amendment every 2 years, and has since 1997, he just did last January.

The 22nd amendment was ratified in the early 50's...it's not like it was part of the original constitution or something. If people like a president and want to elect him again, let them! As long as the elections are fair who cares? Why should we stop the people from electing who they want to elect?

The topic of this thread is not the 22nd Amendment in particular. It's just the most modern example of why we're anxious.

The topic of this thread is how Progressives can obfuscate the most simple clauses when it blocks their agenda.

 

[Nyvin]

Rep. Jose Serrano introduces legislation to repeal the 22nd amendment every 2 years, and has since 1997, he just did last January.

The 22nd amendment was ratified in the early 50's...it's not like it was part of the original constitution or something. If people like a president and want to elect him again, let them! As long as the elections are fair who cares? Why should we stop the people from electing who they want to elect?

The topic of this thread is not the 22nd Amendment in particular. It's just the most modern example of why we're anxious.

The topic of this thread is how Progressives can obfuscate the most simple clauses when it blocks their agenda.

oh in that case, the Constitution was intentionally written vaguely...it was meant to be interpreted in many different ways, otherwise it was feared it wouldn't survive from being too inflexible. If we don't ever change as a nation we'll be swept away with time. Change is a cornerstone to be a successful country.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Better then having NO law under your belief system.

and if there was a law it would be meaningless under your belief system

 

[Destroyer2]

Rep. Jose Serrano introduces legislation to repeal the 22nd amendment every 2 years, and has since 1997, he just did last January.

The 22nd amendment was ratified in the early 50's...it's not like it was part of the original constitution or something. If people like a president and want to elect him again, let them! As long as the elections are fair who cares? Why should we stop the people from electing who they want to elect?

The topic of this thread is not the 22nd Amendment in particular. It's just the most modern example of why we're anxious.

The topic of this thread is how Progressives can obfuscate the most simple clauses when it blocks their agenda.

Well considering the article you were using as an example is stating an opinion and not obfuscating any clause (literally, he's stating the term limit should be ended, not that it doesn't exist), I'm going to need a better example.

 

[Clementine]

This article is not focused on the Obama Third Term Article, it's just mentioned in the introduction as a current example of the problem.

Recently there was an article by a NYU Professor calling for Obama's Third Term.

Instantly, many Progressives shouted down the fears and hysteria over this article, citing that the 22nd Amendment would prevent Obama from becoming a third term President.

----------------------------------------------------

What you Progressives don't seem to realize, is that your bizarre and wild interpretations of constitutional provisions that greatly differ from the common and plain meaning of those provisions --- and this is what has caused such hysteria in the right wing and Libertarian camps.

You Progressives actually try to dispute the meaning of:

"Congress shall make no Law."
"Shall not be infringed."
"No Warrant shall issue."
"Public Use"

and many other phrases in the Constitution.

To the common and simple person, those above four phrases (and countless others), can ONLY have ONE meaning.

Yet, whenever these common and plain meaning phrases become an obstacle to the Progressive agenda, all of sudden, the ivory tower intellectual elites and their herd of useful idiots start to challenge the established and plain meaning of these phrases as understood by the Several States upon the ratification of the Constitution.

Many of you even have the audacity to declare that the USA is a democracy, even though the Constitution expressly forbids democracy in Article IV, Section 4, establishing that the USA is a Republic, and that all others Forms of Government are EXPRESSLY forbidden.

------------------------------------------------------

So, when you cite the 22nd Amendment in its common and plain meaning as being a barrier against Obama's Third Term, it is INANE.

We cannot trust that Progressives and their swarm of locusts will adhere to the common and plain meaning of the 22nd Amendment if it became an obstacle to their agenda.
------------------------------------------------------

Progressives, by overturning and assailing Constitutional Precedent since 1913, have created an atmosphere of LAWLESSNESS and Legal uncertainty. The Constitution is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land when the Progressives are obstructed by it.

Yes, you are the Party of Lawlessness.

This is why we shall not allow you to confiscate out firearms.

Molon Labe.

One thing that may help people understand the liberal mindset is that of the lawyer/client relationship. Most of the liberal politicians have been lawyers. They see a portion of the population as their clients and do their level best to convince many that they are victims who need someone to sue others on their behalf. Of course, politicians don't like debating to get their point across, they prefer to just unilaterally decide to take from those they see as guilty and hand it to those they wish to be loyal to them forever. Of course, in the middle of the confiscation and doling out, they line their own pockets well.

Obama, like other sleazy lawyers, is attempting to award his clients, such as minorities, with big cash that he intends to take from those he sees as guilty, like any person who has achieved success without government help. It has nothing to do with the constitution, bill of rights or common sense. It has to do with a plan to ultimately control this country after it's fundamentally changed and to get there, he will continue the liberal plot to divide people in order to conquer them.

Liberal politicians look at every issue like the lawyers they are. It isn't about law or justice. They want people to believe that they are entitled to things because somehow someone stopped them from providing for themselves and the penalty is higher taxes for all to make things right. Real justice has been scrapped in favor of 'social justice', which is not justice at all, rather an attempt to redistribute wealth in order to take down those at the top while temporarily appeasing those at the bottom. The final stage of their plan is everyone being at the bottom with only the elite and powerful at the top. Only lawyers can argue that it's wrong for a man to be wealthy while becoming insanely wealthy themselves.

Lawyer use cheap tricks and emotion to draw attention away from laws, like the way they used Sandra Fluke to whine about the cost of contraception when they were supposed to be debating the legality of it. They were unable to find any legal leg to stand on for making their case, so they played on people's emotions by crying war on women. If you don't pay for others, you are denying them. whaaaa

Lawyers are real good about writing contracts with all the fine print, that most people are unable to decipher. Obamacare is loaded with that. They came off like sleazy used car salesman and refused to even give anyone a chance to read the fine print. They promised to sell us a Porsche and then switched it with a Yugo. As soon as we drove the used car off the lot, it broke down and now we find out we are stuck with it. It's the only one we are allowed to have, according to their law, and we are shit out of luck if we don't like the undependable and costly piece of shit they handed us. They now have unlimited power over our lives and this is the one law they claim has no loopholes that would let any of us off the hook. Only they can exempt people from the hell known as Obamacare.

Lawyers get crooks off all the time. They also unfairly persecute those who are not guilty by accusing them of wrong doing and using tricks to convince people. The Obama administration refuses to acknowledge some crooks, like the Black Panthers or the gangs that murder on the streets every day. They chose to vilify the wealthy people as if their comfort in life came as a result of stealing from someone else. Remember when Obama said he wanted to punish the 1% and said the wealth should be returned to it's rightful owners? Who were these people who used to have all that money and had it stolen from them? The ones who cheered were the EBT card carrying work shy. Do they believe that they live in squalor because some people made lots of money and live in a mansion? Why does the left constantly bitch about the uneven wealth distribution as if crimes were committed by anyone with money? I'm sure there are crooks, but there are far more people who aren't worthy of a good paying job and it's their own damn fault.

I get tired of liberals bitching because some rich people aren't using their money to create more jobs right now. Maybe some retired and will spend their money in other ways to keep other companies afloat. Maybe some aren't interested in creating jobs for the millions of illegals in this country, who are often way more ambitious than certain citizens.

It's bad enough when Obama says that, at some point, people have made enough money, but when liberals start bitching about how people spend their money, it's just fucking ridiculous.

Forcing us to participate in commerce is wrong and unconstitutional. It's also not working worth a damn, though that is by design. Just wait. The liberals are waiting for the right time to announce that socializing medicine completely and going to single payer is the only answer. That WILL NOT bring cost down for most of us since we will continue to pay for Obama's clients. We are more or less being sued because of the past sins of our ancestors, at least that's the rhetoric he uses on his dependents. He just wants socialism but is using lawyer tactics, which often mock the law, to get there.

When the right panics over comments from liberals, there is reason. Nothing is too ridiculous for liberals to try. That is why we have Obamacare. That is why millions are convinced that the other half owes them something. That is why we have the Great Society, which is going bankrupt. That is why our border control personnel are there for looks only. Liberals don't care about our laws. They, being lawyers, are experts at getting around laws. That is why our constitution is in constant danger. For most of us, it's a brilliant document that explicitly lays out our rights and the duty of government. For lawyers, it is something that can be re-interpreted, argued and made null and void because of what they consider loop holes. There is a reason why they stopped filibusters. They do not want to be challenged as they stock the courts with liberal lawyers who also intend to take down the constitution and they'll do it by legislating from the bench. They hate our due process and they hate having to go through congress because people can use the constitution to fight their ideas.

So, yes, be concerned. They have set many precedents that prove they will do just about anything to get their way. Right now, the only thing stopping them is the constitution. If anyone doesn't think it's under attack, they are the fools.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

oh in that case, the Constitution was intentionally written vaguely...it was meant to be interpreted in many different ways, otherwise it was feared it wouldn't survive from being too inflexible. If we don't ever change as a nation we'll be swept away with time. Change is a cornerstone to be a successful country.

The ratification debates and the ratification debates concerning the Bill of Rights thereafter all have unanimous interpretations by the State legislatures.

There is nothing vague about "Shall not be infringed."

There is nothing vague about female suffrage either.

Rest assured, if 51% of women became Tea Partiers, Female Suffrage would suddenly become a "vague" topic to the left.

If gays suddenly realized that Libertarianism respects their rights by not recognizing ANY marriage (via Government), or in general, a Government that grants privileges to heterosexuals only, the left would suddenly go Alec Baldwin on them.

In fact Alec Baldwin is a prime example of the Leftist Elite. They don't give a fucking damn about gays, or lesbians or bi or even trannies. They will only provide you with "benefits" and "privileges" and "rights" if you bow down to them.

The Libertarian, through the 9th Amendment, recognizes that are rights are innate and reserved to the people, unless delegated to the State or Federal Government via the respective State or US Constitution. The Libertarian doesn't care if gays, lesbians, bis or trannies fuck each other or create their own Church and marry each other. Why? Because that is your unalienable right. Nor will any Libertarian attempt to prohibit or disadvantage you, or grant privledges to heterosexual couples only, because the Libertarian doesn't believe in any form of "Nobility" as prohibited in Article I, Section I of the Constitution.

When you see opposition to "gay rights" or "civil rights" from a Libertarian, it either because:

1: They are not opposed to "gay rights," they are actually opposed to "gay privileges." The Progressive left uses the word "right" when it should use the word "privilege." Libertarians do not believe in privileges for ANY class of citizens, and usually support the entire repeal of the 16th Amendment and IRS to go along with it (most marriage benefits are related to taxes; get rid of the IRS and gays probably wouldn't' carry if the Government recognized their marriage or not.)

2) They are not a Libertarian, but deceptively claiming to be a Libertarian.


If Gays and Trannies want to stop violence against themselves, they should all get guns. There is a group dedicated to "Gay with Guns."

http://www.gayswithguns.net/

If 51% or more gays started getting guns, watch how fast the "Left" would turn on them and call them deviants and extremists and child molesters who want to also shoot children with guns in school. They would question the sanity of gays as well --- vigorously.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you for real? This post is almost a caricature of a paranoid RW rant.

In other words, it's pure fact.

 

[bripat9643]

Rep. Jose Serrano introduces legislation to repeal the 22nd amendment every 2 years, and has since 1997, he just did last January.

The 22nd amendment was ratified in the early 50's...it's not like it was part of the original constitution or something. If people like a president and want to elect him again, let them! As long as the elections are fair who cares? Why should we stop the people from electing who they want to elect?

There is no such thing as a fair election in this country. Incumbents have a huge built-in advantage. That's why we have the 22nd Amendment in the first place. What we need is another Amendment that applies the same rule to every politician in Washington.