The Lawlessness and Legal Ambiguity caused by Progressivism

[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."

?* 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.

Please find any right wing talking points that advocate an speak to gays for their support.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

Broken clocks are right twice a day.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

[
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, in a Democracy, the Sovereignty lies within the People as a Collective.

In a Republic, the Sovereignty lies within the Persons, Individually.

Each individual is Sovereign, as John Locke, John Milton and several others proclaimed (Popular Sovereignity), meaning even 99% of the collective cannot infringe upon their rights.

Most of these theories are centered about Property Rights --- which were protected by the 5th Amendment until Kelo vs New London.

I cannot find a single right-wing OR left-wing group that was happy with Kelo vs New London.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

The Constitution does prohibit it, but anyone with enough political experience and common sense knows that the Bush/Obama Regime's would pull a Micheal Hastings on you if you challenged it. NO lawyer would take it, nor will any judge waive Sovereign Immunity. It would be a death sentence.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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.

Because the states were meant to be test tubes. They weren't prohibited from unicameral legislatures, direct democracy, constitutional amendment processes via referendum, so forth and so on.

And if the people of the given state didn't like things, they could always vote with their feet and go to another state.

You've met the idiot, and he is ye.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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?

It's not "tyranny of the minority' since the minority cannot enact legislation or enforce its will. The minority can only PREVENT the majority from enacting legislation or enforcing its rule.

Stop using the term "tyranny" so carelessly Goebbels.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

Conservatives don't want a democratic government.

Neither does Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, and the States that ratified the Constitution and the additional 37 States that joined the Union thereafter.

Neither did ANY of the Founding Fathers, an they were rarely in unanimous agreement.

And you'll only find a handful of Enlightenment thinkers that preferred Democracy. And most of their early ideas were picked up by Karl Marx and other proto-Marxists. The core of the French Revolution was proto-Marxism (Jacobinism and its hijacking of the Republic idealogy), and that's why it failed with the culmination oft he Reign of Terror.

 

[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.

It's not "tyranny of the minority' since the minority cannot enact legislation or enforce its will. The minority can only PREVENT the majority from enacting legislation or enforcing its rule.

Stop using the term "tyranny" so carelessly Goebbels.

Easy there, big fellah. I was merely meeting that particular poster on their own semantic terms.

So, stow the Goebbels stuff, m'kay?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

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.

You just made the fantastic Libertarian argument for the abolition of all taxes. Good job!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

On the few ideas that all the Founders unanimously agreed upon, they were and remain right. One of those ideas is Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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.

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.

Speaking of stupid, to whom have you been sending your federal property taxes?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

It's not "tyranny of the minority' since the minority cannot enact legislation or enforce its will. The minority can only PREVENT the majority from enacting legislation or enforcing its rule.

Stop using the term "tyranny" so carelessly Goebbels.

Easy there, big fellah. I was merely meeting that particular poster on their own semantic terms.

So, stow the Goebbels stuff, m'kay?

[MENTION=46151]HelenaHandbag[/MENTION]

I was talking to NYCarbineer. I'll edit the post to reflect that.

I was aware that you were regurgitating NYCarb's sensational commie journalist garbage.

 

[ron4342]

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.

We need to end this obstructionism by the progressives once and for all. That is why I believe we should turn this country into another North Korea and appoint a conservative to be President for Life. This foolishness regarding the Constitution, voting, and rights for people who haven't earned them must end. We can establish a small group of wealthy Americans to help run the country and all other Americans will serve them.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

We need to end this obstructionism by the progressives once and for all. That is why I believe we should turn this country into another North Korea and appoint a conservative to be President for Life. This foolishness regarding the Constitution, voting, and rights for people who haven't earned them must end. We can establish a small group of wealthy Americans to help run the country and all other Americans will serve them.

Progressives have already been working on that one for about a century now. They've nearly pulled it off.

Be patient.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Speaking of stupid, to whom have you been sending your federal property taxes?

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one who said only taxpayers should vote.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

Speaking of stupid, to whom have you been sending your federal property taxes?

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one who said only taxpayers should vote.

The answer being the "Federal Reserve" nd the paying the interest on the debt, and revealing that we are all chattel (pledged in our LABOR) to foreign banks would destroy what remains of the "Progressive" facade.

Anyone know where the allodials went and the gold went after FDR seized it in 1933?

 

[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.

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.

When someone like you starts namedropping Plato, I can't help but laugh out loud.

Madison in Federalist 14 summed up the material difference between democracy and republic:

"in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents."

...and that's about it, the nonsense of the rightwing nuts notwithstanding.

You should read this, but you won't:

Madison?s Defintion(s) of Republic

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

When someone like you starts namedropping Plato, I can't help but laugh out loud.

Madison in Federalist 14 summed up the material difference between democracy and republic:

"in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents."

...and that's about it, the nonsense of the rightwing nuts notwithstanding.

You should read this, but you won't:

Madison?s Defintion(s) of Republic

So you're using a "one-liner" to obliterate the entire foundation of the Enlightenment and the ancient schools of thought from which it derived.

That's Progress!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Is that same rightwing that warned us that Obama was going to suspend the 2012 election?

lolol

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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.

Speaking of stupid, to whom have you been sending your federal property taxes?

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one who said only taxpayers should vote.

In FEDERAL elections. And it was freeholders of property, not just taxpayers.

You really don't seem to have much of an attention span.