The Tea Party loves the Constitution?

[daveman]

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...

Yup. The Tea Party can be thanked for turning the GOP back towards the right. Let's just hope they go far enough.

 

[daveman]

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.

Populism is bad?

I guess it is when you think the people need someone to do their thinking for them. Is this the part where you tell me what my best interests are, and it's just coincidence that it's my best interests to keep liberals in power?

 

[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.

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.

If they crash the system, I'm thinking Feudal, after everything is done burning.

 

[Intense]

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 5/5 ths they could have always freed them


Naaaaaaaaaa!

One of my main Super Heroes is Thoreau. He was big on that, and so were many others throughout both the North and the South. How else would the underground railroad have worked. It was wrong, it was a struggle to change the way things were, but look how far it's come. As weird as this sounds, if I was born a Black baby today, there is no other Continent or Country I would want to be born in than right here. What ever it was that brought us here today, the price is paid, American Black Culture among the most advanced in the world.


Again the influence of John Locke.
Thoreau - Civil Disobedience
Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - with annotated text

 

[Intense]

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.

Populism is bad?

I guess it is when you think the people need someone to do their thinking for them. Is this the part where you tell me what my best interests are, and it's just coincidence that it's my best interests to keep liberals in power?

There is another twist on that , and it would be "Who best controls or manipulates the Angry Mob? One of the reasons we need the Courts to play a role and slow the process down, while defending the innocent, or defending principle, at least until cooler heads prevail.

 

[Cal]

Then why do they constantly want to change it?

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much

The Constitution is just something for them to use as a crutch. If they genuinely cared about it, the Tea Party woulda been started way back during the Bush years.

 

[Liberty]

Then why do they constantly want to change it?

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much

The Constitution is just something for them to use as a crutch. If they genuinely cared about it, the Tea Party woulda been started way back during the Bush years.

ever hear of a breaking point? It didn't quite snap. The disdain was always there, though. America hit the tipping point of having to vote for "the lesser of two evils". We want people who share our views, enter: tea party constitutionalists (which are imo just libertarians, but no one really gave us libertarians a shot. oh well ) the majority of Americans are conservative, most understand that the leftists simply want to transform our free society into a socialist oligarchy. It is blatantly obvious, and contrary to popular leftist ideology...Americans are NOT dumb. You are about to feel it, brace yourself.

 

[Intense]

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.

From a different perspective, the Super majority, like in the Senate being 60 votes, or for Constitutional Amendment 75%, sets a very high bar that is very hard to reach without legitimacy, popular just doesn't make it there by itself. The Constitution was intended to establish a foundation from which Justice could prevail, whether in the majority or minority opinion, was secondary to what was just. American Federalism is about shared responsibility between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of Government, both State and Federal, each with defined roles, powers, and jurisdictions. When we change that delicate balance it effects the whole. A decentralized advantage of Federalism is that policies could be tested small scale at first the local, then the State, then the Federal level. The idea is to tailor and adjust small scale rather than mass implementation of policies with kinks that have not been thought out. We stopped doing that. Imagine a factory producing 10,000,000 microwave ovens and distributing them only to have to recall them because not enough attention was placed on a flaw in the prototype. Say the cost of the part was $1.95, now because of the quality control failure that's $1.95 X 10,000,000 + packaging, handling, shipping, and labor. This is the compound effect of one size fits all centralized government when it makes a mistake. It is devastating. You argue that strong Centralized one size fits all government is an improvement. I see the growth of mismanagement and incompetence, and the instinct of government to run cover for it and protect itself at the expense of our quality of life. Yes I believe completely that Unalienable Rights (which include Civil Rights) should be uniformly recognized at the Federal Level and insured. The States themselves have responsibilities of their own, and outside of the Enumerated jurisdiction of the Federal Government, left alone and be allowed to function interdependently within their own rights. We have tons of unnecessary compounded bullshit that we are paying the price for every day. Simplify.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Then why do they constantly want to change it?

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much

what freaking reality are you living in?

My gosh at least back it up with some proof instead of spouting off bullshit.

 

[Justin Buell]

Then why do they constantly want to change it?

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much

First Amendment: This is a fair point. Conservatives tend to want to have their cake and eat it too.
Second Amendment: I agree with Tea Partiers here.
Fourth Amendment: Agreed. The infringements on privacy don't seem to come up much in their lists of grievances.
14th Amendment: They want to end birthright citizenship. Not an issue I agree with, but they're hardly targeting it towards a specific group.
16th Amendment: Much like the 18th Amendment, some things should be reconsidered.
17th Amendment: The House of Representatives were supposed to represent the people, the Senate was supposed to represent the states.

You should also be aware that not all tea partiers see eye to eye on every issue.

 

[daveman]

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.

Populism is bad?

I guess it is when you think the people need someone to do their thinking for them. Is this the part where you tell me what my best interests are, and it's just coincidence that it's my best interests to keep liberals in power?

There is another twist on that , and it would be "Who best controls or manipulates the Angry Mob? One of the reasons we need the Courts to play a role and slow the process down, while defending the innocent, or defending principle, at least until cooler heads prevail.

Indeed. The problem is when the courts rule in a fashionable manner, rubber-stamping the cause du jour.

 

[rightwinger]

Then why do they constantly want to change it?

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much

The Constitution is just something for them to use as a crutch. If they genuinely cared about it, the Tea Party woulda been started way back during the Bush years.

The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government

 

[rightwinger]

Then why do they constantly want to change it?

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much

what freaking reality are you living in?

My gosh at least back it up with some proof instead of spouting off bullshit.

Welcome to the USMB Message Board!

It is obvious that you may have posted here in the past but never found the time to read any of the threads. If you had, you would have seen dozens of threads generated by right wing conservatives on each of these topics. These are the same conservative posters who claim to be members of the Tea Party

I hope you enjoy your time on the board

 

[Liberty]

Then why do they constantly want to change it?

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much

The Constitution is just something for them to use as a crutch. If they genuinely cared about it, the Tea Party woulda been started way back during the Bush years.

The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government

Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution is just something for them to use as a crutch. If they genuinely cared about it, the Tea Party woulda been started way back during the Bush years.

The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government

Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.

Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a Republican and a Conservative now and in the 1950s"??

 

[Intense]

The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government

Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.

Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a Republican and a Conservative now and in the 1950s"??

One constant in this world is change. Cause and effect can be a bitch, huh? We are all Human Beings first RW, now and then, all with independent thought to one degree or another. The complete world perspective does not exist, it never has, it is too incomprehensible. Why try to make things fit where they don't belong?

 

[Liberty]

The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government

Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.

Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a Republican and a Conservative now and in the 1950s"??

I don't know. Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a classical liberal and a modern social liberal now and in the 1930s?"

Can't have it both ways, dipshit.

 

[daveman]

The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government

Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.

Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a Republican and a Conservative now and in the 1950s"??

Dunno. Do we need to go through the whole "What's the difference between a classical and a modern liberal" again?

 

[daveman]

Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.

Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a Republican and a Conservative now and in the 1950s"??

I don't know. Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a classical liberal and a modern social liberal now and in the 1930s?"

Can't have it both ways, dipshit.

Beat me to it!

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.

Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a Republican and a Conservative now and in the 1950s"??

I don't know. Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a classical liberal and a modern social liberal now and in the 1930s?"

Can't have it both ways, dipshit.

I don't know...

Do we need to go through the difference between a fiscal conservative and a social conservative?

Tea Baggers claim to be the one but push the agenda of both