The Lawlessness and Legal Ambiguity caused by Progressivism

[bripat9643]

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.

Horseshit.

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

Not exactly in touch with reality here, are we?

 

[Old Rocks]

Reality. On 20Jan17, President Obama will watch as a new President is sworn into office. And you silly asses will once again be shown to be silly asses.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
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.

.

You're an idiot. A republic can be a form of democracy. Anyone who thinks the 2 terms are incompatible is a fool.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You left out 'abridging', from the 1st Amendment - no law can abridge the freedom of the press.

According to your ideas of simple and plain, that term means that freedom of the press cannot in any way whatsoever be limited.

So, if you're right, that would mean that it's unconstitutional to outlaw child pornography,

correct?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The word 'democracy' comes from the Greek 'demos' meaning 'people' and 'kratos' meaning 'power'.

In a 'democracy', the government's 'power' resides with the 'people'.

Funny why conservatives find that so objectionable.

 

[peach174]

[
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.

.

You're an idiot. A republic can be a form of democracy. Anyone who thinks the 2 terms are incompatible is a fool.

The founders did not like any form of Democracy.
That is why it says in the Constitution that we are guaranteed a Republic form of Government.
We are a Constitutional Republic and Harry Reid has now changed that form of government into a mob rule democracy, where the minority now has no rights to stop the majorities rules over the minority.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
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.

.

You're an idiot. A republic can be a form of democracy. Anyone who thinks the 2 terms are incompatible is a fool.

The founders did not like any form of Democracy.
That is why it says in the Constitution that we are guaranteed a Republic form of Government.
We are a Constitutional Republic and Harry Reid has now changed that form of government into a mob rule democracy, where the minority now has no rights to stop the majorities rules over the minority.

I have to admit, you personally are a good case against letting everyone vote. My god you're retarded.

We have a democracy. We have a democratic republic which is a subset of 'democracy'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives want an oligarchy. That's why they hate democracy.

 

[Destroyer2]

[
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.

.

You're an idiot. A republic can be a form of democracy. Anyone who thinks the 2 terms are incompatible is a fool.

The founders did not like any form of Democracy.
That is why it says in the Constitution that we are guaranteed a Republic form of Government.
We are a Constitutional Republic and Harry Reid has now changed that form of government into a mob rule democracy, where the minority now has no rights to stop the majorities rules over the minority.

This is sort of correct.

The Founding Fathers liked the theoretical idea of a pure democracy, but decided it would not work in practice.

That said, we really are not a Republic in the literal sense of the word. I think Liberal Democracy describes us as a nation better.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

In fact, the hysteria among conservatives and libertarians is a consequence of their ignorance of, or contempt for, the Constitution and its case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law, having nothing to do with ‘progressives.’

The doctrines of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts predate the Constitution, and it was the original intent of the Framers that the laws are subject to review and the meaning of the Constitution determined as part of the process of judicial review.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is an ignorant and failed ‘argument.’

 

[peach174]

You're an idiot. A republic can be a form of democracy. Anyone who thinks the 2 terms are incompatible is a fool.

The founders did not like any form of Democracy.
That is why it says in the Constitution that we are guaranteed a Republic form of Government.
We are a Constitutional Republic and Harry Reid has now changed that form of government into a mob rule democracy, where the minority now has no rights to stop the majorities rules over the minority.

I have to admit, you personally are a good case against letting everyone vote. My god you're retarded.

We have a democracy. We have a democratic republic which is a subset of 'democracy'.

You need to learn a few things, before you go calling someone names.

Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy or a democratic republic. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life. Which we have become now.


They knew very well the meaning of the word "democracy", and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.

A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches. Which now, all three are being merged.
The goal of a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy .

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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."

?* Gays with Guns *?

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.

You’re an ignorant 23-year-old, mindlessly parroting nonsensical sound bites and talking points from equally ignorant rightwing sources.

Post less, read more.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The founders did not like any form of Democracy.
That is why it says in the Constitution that we are guaranteed a Republic form of Government.
We are a Constitutional Republic and Harry Reid has now changed that form of government into a mob rule democracy, where the minority now has no rights to stop the majorities rules over the minority.

I have to admit, you personally are a good case against letting everyone vote. My god you're retarded.

We have a democracy. We have a democratic republic which is a subset of 'democracy'.

You need to learn a few things, before you go calling someone names.

Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy or a democratic republic. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life. Which we have become now.


They knew very well the meaning of the word "democracy", and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.

A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches. Which now, all three are being merged.
The goal of a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy .

The problem is you and others on the right refuse to abide by the rule of law, the cornerstone of the Republic.

When the people enact a measure offensive to the Constitution, such as DOMA, for example, and the courts wisely and appropriately invalidate these un-Constitutional laws, conservatives whine about the ‘will of the people’ being ‘ignored.’

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[Moonglow]

Any human, any form of government can call itself what ever it wants. The true character of the government is the people that run the government and their true motives.
So it is more proper to herald the case that the institution of our govt is well, those that run it are sick.
What is worse is the continued arguments of negativity and divisiveness put out by the media and parroted in this forum.

 

[occupied]

I have to admit, you personally are a good case against letting everyone vote. My god you're retarded.

We have a democracy. We have a democratic republic which is a subset of 'democracy'.

You need to learn a few things, before you go calling someone names.

Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy or a democratic republic. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life. Which we have become now.


They knew very well the meaning of the word "democracy", and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.

A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches. Which now, all three are being merged.
The goal of a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy .

The problem is you and others on the right refuse to abide by the rule of law, the cornerstone of the Republic.

When the people enact a measure offensive to the Constitution, such as DOMA, for example, and the courts wisely and appropriately invalidate these un-Constitutional laws, conservatives whine about the ‘will of the people’ being ‘ignored.’

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Damned good point, when the constitution overturns their latest attempt to legislate morality or entrench their treasured biases and prejudices they scream bloody murder and lament the horror of a few "liberal" justices. In the end they do not want freedom, they only want a government that enables their extraordinarily undemocratic mindset where people are put in their place.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.

The word 'democracy' comes from the Greek 'demos' meaning people, and 'kratos' meaning power.

In a 'democracy' the sovereignty resides with the people themselves.


See, you idiot?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what conservatives here are trying to say is:

The passing of Obamacare was a good thing, and the way our system is supposed to work,

because it passed despite (allegedly) not having the support of the majority of the people,

aka 'the mob'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The founders did not like any form of Democracy.
That is why it says in the Constitution that we are guaranteed a Republic form of Government.
We are a Constitutional Republic and Harry Reid has now changed that form of government into a mob rule democracy, where the minority now has no rights to stop the majorities rules over the minority.

I have to admit, you personally are a good case against letting everyone vote. My god you're retarded.

We have a democracy. We have a democratic republic which is a subset of 'democracy'.

You need to learn a few things, before you go calling someone names.

Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy or a democratic republic. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life. Which we have become now.


They knew very well the meaning of the word "democracy", and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.

A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches. Which now, all three are being merged.
The goal of a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy .

Then why doesn't the Constitution prohibit states from holding referendums, such as Prop 8 in California?

Referendums are 'mobocracy' according to idiots like yourself, therefore they must be unconstitutional.

States cannot have unconstitutional laws.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Founders only allowed a certain narrow, elite portion of the People to vote.

I think that is the part of conservatism's agenda against that so-called 'mobocracy they so ardently champion.

Take away the votes of the poor, those who don't have property, those who don't pay enough in taxes, etc., etc.,

that is the vision of a proper oligarchy that conservatism dreams of.

 

[paperview]

Yemen, Ghana, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Somaliland...are all Constitutional Republics.

Just sayin'.