The Lawlessness and Legal Ambiguity caused by Progressivism

[HelenaHandbag]

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.

Since you want a form of governance that goes back to ancient Greece, it seems as though Jefferson was right, which makes you the fool here.

Sucks to be you.

 

[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.

Quite the opposite, in the case of Jefferson, who said

“governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it.”

The "people" in the above are the mob you constantly refer to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Since you want a form of governance that goes back to ancient Greece, it seems as though Jefferson was right, which makes you the fool here.

Sucks to be you.

I asked you, would your first step be to take the vote away from women and blacks?

 

[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.

Jefferson also said this, which pretty much demolishes the idea behind the Senate, among other things:

"But inequality of representation in both Houses of our legislature, is not the only republican heresy in this first essay of our revolutionary patriots at forming a constitution.

For let it be agreed that a government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has his equal voice in the direction of its concerns (not indeed in person, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of a city, or small township, but) by representatives chosen by himself, and responsible to him at short periods, and let us bring to the test of this canon every branch of our constitution."

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Is that the same Jefferson who felt that only freeholders should have a vote in federal elections?

That Jefferson?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is that the same Jefferson who felt that only freeholders should have a vote in federal elections?

That Jefferson?

Did you tell me yet whether we should take the vote away from blacks and women, or are you dodging that for the painfully obvious reason?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I'm pointing out the context in which Jefferson made his statement. It was during the time that only those who had some of that now (in)famous "skin in the game" could vote in federal elections.

Also, the vote was extended to blacks and women via lawful constitutional processes, not via the judicial oligarchy ruling by decree and the mobocracy that you favor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is that the same Jefferson who felt that only freeholders should have a vote in federal elections?

That Jefferson?

If he did that only further proves the wisdom of him saying we shouldn't be hanging on every word of the founders,

like you would like to do, when it suits you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm pointing out the context in which Jefferson made his statement. It was during the time that only those who had some of that now (in)famous "skin in the game" could vote in federal elections.

Also, the vote was extended to blacks and women via lawful constitutional processes, not via the judicial oligarchy ruling by decree and the mobocracy that you favor.

You keep claiming the mob shouldn't have the right to vote, so why don't you at least tell us who composes the mob that currently should not have power in our government?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Is that the same Jefferson who felt that only freeholders should have a vote in federal elections?

That Jefferson?

If he did that only further proves the wisdom of him saying we shouldn't be hanging on every word of the founders,

like you would like to do, when it suits you.

What it proves is your willing to pick and choose which sentiments of the framers that you want to invoke, while entirely ignoring the context of the times in which they were uttered.

But I wasn't the one who used Jefferson's words -and might I add very ineptly- to try and score points here, was I?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you know what this is?

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

It's one of the most often used lines attributed to Thomas Jefferson...

...problem is, he never said it. Nowhere on record as a legitimate Jefferson quote.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Only landowners were allowed to vote. There was no income tax, just property tax so only those who paid taxes were trusted to spend the money wisely.

We should have the same thing today. Voting limited to taxpayers only.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is that the same Jefferson who felt that only freeholders should have a vote in federal elections?

That Jefferson?

If he did that only further proves the wisdom of him saying we shouldn't be hanging on every word of the founders,

like you would like to do, when it suits you.

What it proves is your willing to pick and choose which sentiments of the framers that you want to invoke, while entirely ignoring the context of the times in which they were uttered.

But I wasn't the one who used Jefferson's words -and might I add very ineptly- to try and score points here, was I?

No, you were the one who made this patently false broadbrush statement:

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.

I was simply proving that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[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.

Only landowners were allowed to vote. There was no income tax, just property tax so only those who paid taxes were trusted to spend the money wisely.

We should have the same thing today. Voting limited to taxpayers only.

Everybody pays property taxes, unless they never purchase anything. Why?

Because property taxes get built into the cost of virtually everything you pay for. Starting with rent if you're not a property owner.

Oh, don't let that rational response obscure the fact that your idea is so stupid as to not be worthy of a response.

 

[jasonnfree]

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.

The liberal mindset and Obama. Are you a certified liberal appraiser? Where did you get your certificate from?
If Obama and of course Harry Reid were what the right wing says they are, then why didn't they do away with the filibuster five years ago? That should have been a question on one of your tests.

 

[Vox]

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.

don't take a bait - Matthew is a brainless leftard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now that I've proven the obvious, i.e., that the Founders weren't always right, maybe someone in turn can prove why we should slavishly devote ourselves to their ideas anyhow.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is that the same Jefferson who felt that only freeholders should have a vote in federal elections?

That Jefferson?

Jefferson argued in 1776 that the right to vote in Virginia ought not be limited to property owners:

"Now as to the representative house, which ought to be so constructed as to answer that character truly: I was for extending the rights of suffrage (or in other words the rights of a citizen) to all who had a permanent intention of living in the country. Take what circumstances you please as evidence for this, either the having resided a certain time, or having a family, or having property, any or all of them. Whoever intends to live in a country must wish the country well, and has a natural right of assisting in the preservation of it."

Vindicating the Founders: Document Library: Letter to William Pendleton on requirements for voting

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

It's a left winger that made the claim, not the right wing. The right is REACTING to his claim of a 3rd term.

Blame the leftie that wrote the article, not us.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

[
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.

A Republic and a Democracy are two separate Forms of Government. You can start with Plato and Cicero, and work your way through two thousand years of the following legal development of thought, and through the Enlightenment. There are dozens of great minds throughout the Enlightenment who adored the Republic and abhorred Democracy.