The Lawlessness and Legal Ambiguity caused by Progressivism

[peach174]

[
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?

NO !
You are the one does not see,
Democracy is people power of the majority and tramples rights over the few.
Our Republic is freedom from Government and has equal rights for the many as well as the few.
This how Slaves became free, how women got the right to vote. It will eventually lead to Gay's rights as well.
It's also how the Progressives got into our Government in the 60's and 70's who think that Government is the answer to everything. The Progressives who are a minority in this Nation who now have pretty much control over everything and everyone.
A Democracy does not do that.

 

[Metzor]

When congress and the courts approve of a measure, such as ACA, Social Security or Medicare, based solely on congresses ability to tax, it is an egregious violation of the constitution. The constitution was put in place to prevent the people from having everything their hearts desire. The constitution clearly defines the role and scope of government, and limits it to very specific things. Why bother making a list, if congress can do anything it wants?

Providing for the General Welfare has nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of social programs, and the courts know it. Unfortunately, there are those among us who believe that government should be used to provide all things to some of the people, at the expense of the rest. This is most certainly NOT constitutional, and at it's core, is a disgusting way to remove freedom and gain political power.

The flood gates have been open for 100 years and we now have more unconstitutional social programs, departments and institutions than ever. We also have large groups of citizens and political parties that have become dependent on the money and power that constitutional violations provide. Our republic has been compromised by progressives who envy wealth, desire power and will gladly abuse government to punish success and prevent failure. Economic disaster will undoubtedly be the end result.

 

[peach174]

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

Just sayin'.

None of the above is a Constitutional Republic.
They are a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

 

[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?

NO !
You are the one does not see,
Democracy is people power of the majority and tramples rights over the few.
Our Republic is freedom from Government and has equal rights for the many as well as the few.
This how Slaves became free, how women got the right to vote. It will eventually lead to Gay's rights as well.
It's also how the Progressives got into our Government in the 60's and 70's who think that Government is the answer to everything. The Progressives who are a minority in this Nation who now have pretty much control over everything and everyone.
A Democracy does not do that.

If, in a democracy, the people decide, by exercise of their power in that democracy, to protect, by law, certain rights of certain minorities,

how does that make that not a democracy anymore?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Just sayin'.

None of the above is a Constitutional Republic.
They are a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

You didn't tell why your Arizona state Senate doesn't have the filibuster.

Does that mean you don't have a functional government in Arizona?

 

[peach174]

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

Just sayin'.

None of the above is a Constitutional Republic.
They are a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

You didn't tell why your Arizona state Senate doesn't have the filibuster.

Does that mean you don't have a functional government in Arizona?

Only 13 States have a filibuster. Each State has the freedom to choose.
There is a big difference between Federal government and Sate Governments.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When congress and the courts approve of a measure, such as ACA, Social Security or Medicare, based solely on congresses ability to tax, it is an egregious violation of the constitution.

Citation?

You’re entitled to your opinion, but absent case law in support it’s subjective and meaningless.

 

[paperview]

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

Just sayin'.

None of the above is a Constitutional Republic.
...

You're wrong.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Because democracy ends when the people become corrupt. Just like Benjamin Franklin said it would.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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.,

Which was a good thing.

Why should those who don't have jack squat to be taken away from them, do the taking from the productive and the thrifty via mob rule?

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

As opposed to the "if you don't like it sue me" oligarchy we have now, I'll take it.

 

[Metzor]

When congress and the courts approve of a measure, such as ACA, Social Security or Medicare, based solely on congresses ability to tax, it is an egregious violation of the constitution.

Citation?

You’re entitled to your opinion, but absent case law in support it’s subjective and meaningless.

An amendment that gives congress the ability to tax income does not eliminate the listed functions of congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. I don't require case law to interpret what is clearly written, no matter how much you'd like to ignore it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

None of the above is a Constitutional Republic.
They are a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

You didn't tell why your Arizona state Senate doesn't have the filibuster.

Does that mean you don't have a functional government in Arizona?

Only 13 States have a filibuster. Each State has the freedom to choose.
There is a big difference between Federal government and Sate Governments.

Oh, so tyranny of the minority as you would call it suddenly becomes permissible in a state government for some unknown reason.

Who holds the majority in the Arizona state Senate?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You didn't tell why your Arizona state Senate doesn't have the filibuster.

Does that mean you don't have a functional government in Arizona?

Only 13 States have a filibuster. Each State has the freedom to choose.
There is a big difference between Federal government and Sate Governments.

Oh, so tyranny of the minority as you would call it suddenly becomes permissible in a state government for some unknown reason.

Who holds the majority in the Arizona state Senate?

This tyranny of the minority was just fine and dandy when it was Pelosi and Reid who were practicing it.

 

[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.,

Which was a good thing.

Why should those who don't have jack squat to be taken away from them, do the taking from the productive and the thrifty via mob rule?

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

As opposed to the "if you don't like it sue me" oligarchy we have now, I'll take it.

See? You can get it out of them if you're persistent.

Conservatives don't want a democratic government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Only 13 States have a filibuster. Each State has the freedom to choose.
There is a big difference between Federal government and Sate Governments.

Oh, so tyranny of the minority as you would call it suddenly becomes permissible in a state government for some unknown reason.

Who holds the majority in the Arizona state Senate?

This tyranny of the minority was just fine and dandy when it was Pelosi and Reid who were practicing it.

Rights are protected in the Constitution, but there is no such right as the right of the minority in a legislature to tyrannize the majority.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Imagine how different this conversation would look if this were 2002, and the Democratic minority in the Senate was filibustering the Iraq War authorization.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Oh, so tyranny of the minority as you would call it suddenly becomes permissible in a state government for some unknown reason.

Who holds the majority in the Arizona state Senate?

This tyranny of the minority was just fine and dandy when it was Pelosi and Reid who were practicing it.

Rights are protected in the Constitution, but there is no such right as the right of the minority in a legislature to tyrannize the majority.

I bet the farm you were good with Pelosi and Reid doing it when the republicans held all the cards.

That's how blind partisans like you roll.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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.,

Which was a good thing.

Why should those who don't have jack squat to be taken away from them, do the taking from the productive and the thrifty via mob rule?

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

As opposed to the "if you don't like it sue me" oligarchy we have now, I'll take it.

See? You can get it out of them if you're persistent.

Conservatives don't want a democratic government.

Democratic government was referred to by the framers time and again as mobocracy, and as a form of governance that they were working to avoid at all costs.

Sorry your grasp of history is so sketchy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which was a good thing.

Why should those who don't have jack squat to be taken away from them, do the taking from the productive and the thrifty via mob rule?



As opposed to the "if you don't like it sue me" oligarchy we have now, I'll take it.

See? You can get it out of them if you're persistent.

Conservatives don't want a democratic government.

Democratic government was referred to by the framers time and again as mobocracy, and as a form of governance that they were working to avoid at all costs.

Sorry your grasp of history is so sketchy.

And Jefferson said that people would be foolish to live under the rules made by people hundreds of years ago,

out of some sort of quasi-religious devotion to them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which was a good thing.

Why should those who don't have jack squat to be taken away from them, do the taking from the productive and the thrifty via mob rule?



As opposed to the "if you don't like it sue me" oligarchy we have now, I'll take it.

See? You can get it out of them if you're persistent.

Conservatives don't want a democratic government.

Democratic government was referred to by the framers time and again as mobocracy, and as a form of governance that they were working to avoid at all costs.

Sorry your grasp of history is so sketchy.

We could start I suppose by going back to when black people and women couldn't vote. Would that be your first step?