The Tea Party loves the Constitution?

[rightwinger]

And now they're saying the FF would have blessed how they've ruined the vision.

The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to

wow, you must have like 5 masters degrees and 12 Phds to come to that conclusion, professor! thats why there is the amendment process, by the way. I cant believe you stick around just to get your ass beat. Masochist much?

No junior

That is why we have a Judicial branch

 

[Intense]

The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to

wow, you must have like 5 masters degrees and 12 Phds to come to that conclusion, professor! thats why there is the amendment process, by the way. I cant believe you stick around just to get your ass beat. Masochist much?

No junior

That is why we have a Judicial branch

The more you think about it, the more lame that line of reasoning seems.

 

[daveman]

Foolish or Willfully ignorant. What our government has become was exactly what the Founders tried to avoid.

And now they're saying the FF would have blessed how they've ruined the vision.

We've ruined it.

Sorry, too many pronouns.

"And now leftists are saying the FF would have blessed how leftists have ruined the vision."

 

[daveman]

Foolish or Willfully ignorant. What our government has become was exactly what the Founders tried to avoid.

And now they're saying the FF would have blessed how they've ruined the vision.

The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to

Not what I said. They had a vision of how government should work.

You're fucking that up. Stop it.

 

[rightwinger]

wow, you must have like 5 masters degrees and 12 Phds to come to that conclusion, professor! thats why there is the amendment process, by the way. I cant believe you stick around just to get your ass beat. Masochist much?

No junior

That is why we have a Judicial branch

The more you think about it, the more lame that line of reasoning seems.

As lame as "we need to go through the amendment process every time we need a constitutional interpretation"??

I think not

 

[Intense]

No junior

That is why we have a Judicial branch

The more you think about it, the more lame that line of reasoning seems.

As lame as "we need to go through the amendment process every time we need a constitutional interpretation"??

I think not

There you go again injecting imaginary things.

We need an Amendment Process to set course RW, We need the Court to Interpret, clarify, and distinguish when needed and to apply Justice, to resolve dispute. It is for Congress to write the Law, The Court to point out conflict and constitutionality should there be question or challenge. This role is not a substitute for the Amendment process. Stop lying to the population about it.

 

[jillian]

And now they're saying the FF would have blessed how they've ruined the vision.

The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to

Not what I said. They had a vision of how government should work.

You're fucking that up. Stop it.

their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.

that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.

equal protection now is not equal protection then.

 

[Intense]

The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to

Not what I said. They had a vision of how government should work.

You're fucking that up. Stop it.

their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.

that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.

equal protection now is not equal protection then.

Yeah, and.... both the Amendment Process and The Courts play a role in keeping the playing field in proper order. We learn new things and become more aware every day. We establish justice because of it's own sake, the best we can, be it application and administration or new construction, never forgetting that it is the will of the people by their consent that is served. There is no interpretation that trumps a 75% majority perspective.

 

[Liberty]

The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to

Not what I said. They had a vision of how government should work.

You're fucking that up. Stop it.

their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.

that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.

equal protection now is not equal protection then.

sigh. if african american slaves had full voting power, the south would have had majority in congress because the slave owners would FORCE the slaves to vote a certain way. that is why they were 3/5ths so the south could not achieve majority in congress. Come on Jilly-bean. The founders wanted to abolish slavery, all of them did. The thing is, the climate of 1776-1797 was so fragile being a new country and all that to go about trying to get rid of it then would divide the country. John Adams by the way was the first one to amend a state constitution to emancipate (Massachusetts 1800). Your delusion that the founders were all racist slave owners is a lie and a fallacy in itself. Yes, some had slaves, but they all recognized their own hypocrisy but the time to fully emancipate was not right, it would have caused immediate civil discourse, war, and distention. You make yourself look so dumb...read some frederick douglass autobiography. learn how the constitution was a document built to free slaves, from douglass himself...i am sorry the education system failed you so.

 

[rightwinger]

Not what I said. They had a vision of how government should work.

You're fucking that up. Stop it.

their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.

that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.

equal protection now is not equal protection then.

sigh. if african american slaves had full voting power, the south would have had majority in congress because the slave owners would FORCE the slaves to vote a certain way. that is why they were 3/5ths so the south could not achieve majority in congress. Come on Jilly-bean. The founders wanted to abolish slavery, all of them did. The thing is, the climate of 1776-1797 was so fragile being a new country and all that to go about trying to get rid of it then would divide the country. John Adams by the way was the first one to amend a state constitution to emancipate (Massachusetts 1800). Your delusion that the founders were all racist slave owners is a lie and a fallacy in itself. Yes, some had slaves, but they all recognized their own hypocrisy but the time to fully emancipate was not right, it would have caused immediate civil discourse, war, and distention. You make yourself look so dumb...read some frederick douglass autobiography. learn how the constitution was a document built to free slaves, from douglass himself...i am sorry the education system failed you so.

Slaves had no voting power....not even 3/5ths of a vote

The 3/5 ths came into play in apportioning the House of Representatives

 

[jillian]

Not what I said. They had a vision of how government should work.

You're fucking that up. Stop it.

their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.

that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.

equal protection now is not equal protection then.

Yeah, and.... both the Amendment Process and The Courts play a role in keeping the playing field in proper order. We learn new things and become more aware every day. We establish justice because of it's own sake, the best we can, be it application and administration or new construction, never forgetting that it is the will of the people by their consent that is served. There is no interpretation that trumps a 75% majority perspective.

once again... and as much as i like you, i'm starting to think you're intentionally ignoring a very salient fact...

no one cares about a 75% majority.

if segregation were put to a vote today, it would pass.

that's irrelevant.

 

[Intense]

Not what I said. They had a vision of how government should work.

You're fucking that up. Stop it.

their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.

that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.

equal protection now is not equal protection then.

sigh. if african american slaves had full voting power, the south would have had majority in congress because the slave owners would FORCE the slaves to vote a certain way. that is why they were 3/5ths so the south could not achieve majority in congress. Come on Jilly-bean. The founders wanted to abolish slavery, all of them did. The thing is, the climate of 1776-1797 was so fragile being a new country and all that to go about trying to get rid of it then would divide the country. John Adams by the way was the first one to amend a state constitution to emancipate (Massachusetts 1800). Your delusion that the founders were all racist slave owners is a lie and a fallacy in itself. Yes, some had slaves, but they all recognized their own hypocrisy but the time to fully emancipate was not right, it would have caused immediate civil discourse, war, and distention. You make yourself look so dumb...read some frederick douglass autobiography. learn how the constitution was a document built to free slaves, from douglass himself...i am sorry the education system failed you so.

Exactly. the 3/5th's count value was protective.

 

[Intense]

their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.

that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.

equal protection now is not equal protection then.

sigh. if african american slaves had full voting power, the south would have had majority in congress because the slave owners would FORCE the slaves to vote a certain way. that is why they were 3/5ths so the south could not achieve majority in congress. Come on Jilly-bean. The founders wanted to abolish slavery, all of them did. The thing is, the climate of 1776-1797 was so fragile being a new country and all that to go about trying to get rid of it then would divide the country. John Adams by the way was the first one to amend a state constitution to emancipate (Massachusetts 1800). Your delusion that the founders were all racist slave owners is a lie and a fallacy in itself. Yes, some had slaves, but they all recognized their own hypocrisy but the time to fully emancipate was not right, it would have caused immediate civil discourse, war, and distention. You make yourself look so dumb...read some frederick douglass autobiography. learn how the constitution was a document built to free slaves, from douglass himself...i am sorry the education system failed you so.

Slaves had no voting power....not even 3/5ths of a vote

The 3/5 ths came into play in apportioning the House of Representatives

Right, and the 3/5th's being less than a whole weakened the South's representation.

 

[Intense]

their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.

that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.

equal protection now is not equal protection then.

Yeah, and.... both the Amendment Process and The Courts play a role in keeping the playing field in proper order. We learn new things and become more aware every day. We establish justice because of it's own sake, the best we can, be it application and administration or new construction, never forgetting that it is the will of the people by their consent that is served. There is no interpretation that trumps a 75% majority perspective.

once again... and as much as i like you, i'm starting to think you're intentionally ignoring a very salient fact...

no one cares about a 75% majority.

if segregation were put to a vote today, it would pass.

that's irrelevant.

The will of the people always matters. I guarantee you that the Court itself fears for the irreparable damage it would cause going against that kind of a Super Majority like that. It takes a 2/3 majority, either by Congress or the States, to bring a Constitutional Amendment to debate, 3/4 to ratify it. Slam Dunk. Game over. What side of the equation do you really think the court wants to be? The Constitution has alway's been about the will of the People, It is more inclusive now than it was then.

 

[daveman]

The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to

Not what I said. They had a vision of how government should work.

You're fucking that up. Stop it.

their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.

that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.

equal protection now is not equal protection then.

No one's saying we should return to those times. We should return to limited Federal government.

 

[The T]

Not what I said. They had a vision of how government should work.

You're fucking that up. Stop it.

their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.

that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.

equal protection now is not equal protection then.

No one's saying we should return to those times. We should return to limited Federal government.

Tell you what? If CAP and Trade passes? Jillian may just be correct. We will return to just that.

They really need to be careful what they wish for and what they truly support and stop being so mindless.

Thought is cheap and easy actually. The consequences of what these Statists actually want however, are NOT.

 

[daveman]

their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.

that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.

equal protection now is not equal protection then.

No one's saying we should return to those times. We should return to limited Federal government.

Tell you what? If CAP and Trade passes? Jillian may just be correct. We will return to just that.

They really need to be careful what they wish for and what they truly support and stop being so mindless.

Thought is cheap and easy actually. The consequences of what these Statists actually want however, are NOT.

Statists don't do consequences. They just blame everything on the GOP and hope people buy their bullshit.

 

[The T]

No one's saying we should return to those times. We should return to limited Federal government.

Tell you what? If CAP and Trade passes? Jillian may just be correct. We will return to just that.

They really need to be careful what they wish for and what they truly support and stop being so mindless.

Thought is cheap and easy actually. The consequences of what these Statists actually want however, are NOT.

Statists don't do consequences. They just blame everything on the GOP and hope people buy their bullshit.

And that the GOP is just as culpable to date for making deals with the Statists. The GOP doesn't know it yet? But they are about to be subjegated to the Tea Party Constitutionalists...

They had better go along...or the GOP will DIE as the Democrats are in the throws of after being subjegated by the Socialists/Marxists/Statists/Progressive Leftists.

The people have quite a mess to untangle...

 

[Sallow]

their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.

that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.

equal protection now is not equal protection then.

Yeah, and.... both the Amendment Process and The Courts play a role in keeping the playing field in proper order. We learn new things and become more aware every day. We establish justice because of it's own sake, the best we can, be it application and administration or new construction, never forgetting that it is the will of the people by their consent that is served. There is no interpretation that trumps a 75% majority perspective.

once again... and as much as i like you, i'm starting to think you're intentionally ignoring a very salient fact...

no one cares about a 75% majority.

if segregation were put to a vote today, it would pass.

that's irrelevant.

Well yeah..and be fully endorsed by today's tea party..but I digress.

What the mopes and lunatics on the right continue to ignore was that the Constitution, had built into it, an inate spirit against "populism" and "fashionable" rule.

Which is something they love.

Along with rule by the monied class.

To bad children. The Constitution disagrees with ya.

 

[rightwinger]

sigh. if african american slaves had full voting power, the south would have had majority in congress because the slave owners would FORCE the slaves to vote a certain way. that is why they were 3/5ths so the south could not achieve majority in congress. Come on Jilly-bean. The founders wanted to abolish slavery, all of them did. The thing is, the climate of 1776-1797 was so fragile being a new country and all that to go about trying to get rid of it then would divide the country. John Adams by the way was the first one to amend a state constitution to emancipate (Massachusetts 1800). Your delusion that the founders were all racist slave owners is a lie and a fallacy in itself. Yes, some had slaves, but they all recognized their own hypocrisy but the time to fully emancipate was not right, it would have caused immediate civil discourse, war, and distention. You make yourself look so dumb...read some frederick douglass autobiography. learn how the constitution was a document built to free slaves, from douglass himself...i am sorry the education system failed you so.

Slaves had no voting power....not even 3/5ths of a vote

The 3/5 ths came into play in apportioning the House of Representatives

Right, and the 3/5th's being less than a whole weakened the South's representation.

Yea....I guess they were getting hosed. I feel so sorry for them

But I guess if they wanted the blacks to count for 5/5ths they could have always freed them


Naaaaaaaaaa!