There Is No "Far Right" In This Country

[Centinel]

Before you uninformed knot-it-all's start spouting your crackpot ideas about the intent of the framers of the Constitution, you should first read and FULLY understand what that Social Contract says! The Supremacy Clause means what it says since it ratification, and it's the law of the land. It is not a fantasy or figment of whim that the Nation is stuck in some kind of limbo where the Articles of Confederation are still in force and effect when the States did have the power you're claiming they now have. You are in error and constitutionally ignorant. Edify thyself!

I am well aware that the states put the supremacy clause into their constitution. I am well aware that the constitution the states wrote and ratified, and those laws made pursuant to it (and only those made pursuant to it), are the supreme law of the land.

C_Clayton_Jones made the claim that the supreme court, one branch of the government created by the states, is the only body of people who know what the constitution actually means. This is clearly wrong on its face, as the delegates of the sovereign states were the actual authors of the document. They wrote it, and the people of the sovereign states ratified it prior to the very existence of the supreme court.

Do you contend that the authors of the constitution and the states that ratified it didn't actually know what the contract between themselves meant?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread reminds me of something....

Aren't you the guy who wanted to claim Ted Cruz was an example of Far Right...but couldn't name a single position of his that wasn't consubstantial with American history and tradition?

Yeah....that was you!

Now you're back to try to save face?????

Let's find a point of agreement.

I believe that, from your political perspective, there is no Far Right.

No one is to the Right of you.

There. Everyone should be happy.

For a fence-sitter, keeping everyone happy is the
'raison d'être.'


For me......providing the truth is my mission.




Each to his own.

 

[Centinel]

Clearly, Madison's reference to the Supremacy of the Constitution is sufficient to dispel any validity to the crackpot notion that the States are Supreme over the Union and the tail wags the damn dog!

The states existed prior to the union. The states established the union. The states are the principals and the union is their agent.

Which is the tail, and which is the dog?

 

[Mac1958]

This thread reminds me of something....

Aren't you the guy who wanted to claim Ted Cruz was an example of Far Right...but couldn't name a single position of his that wasn't consubstantial with American history and tradition?

Yeah....that was you!

Now you're back to try to save face?????

Let's find a point of agreement.

I believe that, from your political perspective, there is no Far Right.

No one is to the Right of you.

There. Everyone should be happy.

For a fence-sitter, keeping everyone happy is the
'raison d'être.'


For me......providing the truth is my mission.




Each to his own.

Okay, fence-sitter.

Good to know we can always turn to you for The Truth.


.

 

[BlindBoo]

Do you not know of people like Stephen "Don" Black, Preston Wigginton, David Duke then? They're in the US and they're far right. The former was a member of the US Nazi Party.. just in case you think he's not far right.

He runs Stormfront, you can find a lot of far right racists hanging out there.

1. Until 1989 at least, David Duke ran for elected office on the Democrat ticket.

2.More to the point, David Duke is a Nazi.
Nazis are leftists.....

". ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?"
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian



I am often astounded at your lack of education.
Are you a government school graduate?

A) It doesn't matter what David Duke ran on, he was still far right and has never been a member of a Nazi Party. Black has, but not Duke.

B) As for your nonsense about whether Nazism is far left or far right, it's commonly accepted that Nazism is far right, that's just what it is called. Get over it. Trying to discredit the opposition by falsely linking it with Hitler and the Nazis is just desperate nonsense.

1. "...as for your nonsense about whether Nazism is far left or far right, it's commonly accepted that Nazism is far right,..."


Accepted by the uneducated, and the indoctrinated.



2. "Trying to discredit the opposition by falsely linking it with Hitler and the Nazis is just desperate nonsense.

Yet, exactly what the Left has done...and you've bought it like it was on sale.

"American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin,..."
Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

Ah, the way to defeat anyone in a verbal battle, just declare them to be "indoctrinated" or "uneducated".

Actually we have things called "labels". An "apple" is an apple no matter which way you look at it. You can call it a Manzana, an Apfel, a Pingguo, whatever you like, but it's still an apple. Labels are labels and "far right" is a label for things which are Fascism, Nazism and so on.

No, most people who look at what Hitler did, realize that he wasn't a Socialist in any way, shape or form.

Most people don't even bother to debate whether Hitler was far right or not, because it doesn't even matter. Hitler was what he was, and the label we have for what he was is "far-right". The only people who give a damn are people on the right who want to be removed from any connections with what Hitler did. I'd ask why they would want this so.

People on the left don't try and distance themselves from someone like Stalin, they call him far-left, but don't feel that far-left has much to do with the center left of politics, nor even things like Socialism.

So you can quote someone who you think agrees with you. So what? It's their opinion. That still doesn't take away from the fact that labels are labels.

"No, most people who look at what Hitler did, realize that he wasn't a Socialist in any way, shape or form."

Gads, you're an imbecile.

". ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?"
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

Ah so it'a all in the name.......because everyone knows North Korea, aka
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea", is a Democratic Republic.

The idea that there is no far right is rejected as ridiculous as if you were to say there is no far left.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Until 1989 at least, David Duke ran for elected office on the Democrat ticket.

2.More to the point, David Duke is a Nazi.
Nazis are leftists.....

". ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?"
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian



I am often astounded at your lack of education.
Are you a government school graduate?

A) It doesn't matter what David Duke ran on, he was still far right and has never been a member of a Nazi Party. Black has, but not Duke.

B) As for your nonsense about whether Nazism is far left or far right, it's commonly accepted that Nazism is far right, that's just what it is called. Get over it. Trying to discredit the opposition by falsely linking it with Hitler and the Nazis is just desperate nonsense.

1. "...as for your nonsense about whether Nazism is far left or far right, it's commonly accepted that Nazism is far right,..."


Accepted by the uneducated, and the indoctrinated.



2. "Trying to discredit the opposition by falsely linking it with Hitler and the Nazis is just desperate nonsense.

Yet, exactly what the Left has done...and you've bought it like it was on sale.

"American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin,..."
Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

Ah, the way to defeat anyone in a verbal battle, just declare them to be "indoctrinated" or "uneducated".

Actually we have things called "labels". An "apple" is an apple no matter which way you look at it. You can call it a Manzana, an Apfel, a Pingguo, whatever you like, but it's still an apple. Labels are labels and "far right" is a label for things which are Fascism, Nazism and so on.

No, most people who look at what Hitler did, realize that he wasn't a Socialist in any way, shape or form.

Most people don't even bother to debate whether Hitler was far right or not, because it doesn't even matter. Hitler was what he was, and the label we have for what he was is "far-right". The only people who give a damn are people on the right who want to be removed from any connections with what Hitler did. I'd ask why they would want this so.

People on the left don't try and distance themselves from someone like Stalin, they call him far-left, but don't feel that far-left has much to do with the center left of politics, nor even things like Socialism.

So you can quote someone who you think agrees with you. So what? It's their opinion. That still doesn't take away from the fact that labels are labels.

"No, most people who look at what Hitler did, realize that he wasn't a Socialist in any way, shape or form."

Gads, you're an imbecile.

". ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?"
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

Ah so it'a all in the name.......because everyone knows North Korea, aka
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea", is a Democratic Republic.

The idea that there is no far right is rejected as ridiculous as if you were to say there is no far left.

I didn't use the name to prove the point.

I used ten specific examples.

These:

So far, I've given these examples of traditionally American positions...the 'center' against which to compare the positions.
Radical positions as opposed to traditional ones identify "Far" Left or Right....


1. ... traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage.. Which one is radical?



2. Another of those positions under regular discussion is 'prayer' in the public arena....Congress opens each year with prayer. Opposing prayer is radical....religiosity is traditional in America.


3. Is 'free speech' embraced by one side, and opposed by the other? You betcha! Obama's Supreme Court nominee says it would be be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
Starting to see a pattern?


4. While we were founded on the biblical idea that all men are created equal,
LBJ advanced a two-class nation based on skin color.
....this radical view was advanced: affirmative action. Hence, Democrats....the Far Left.


5. Here's one more radical position by the Left....fighting to elect a sexual pervert and admitted liar and disbarred lawyer to the White House: Bill Clinton
Relative to American traditions, values, and history ...championing a man of such low character is a radical position.
Hence, Far Left..


6. Franklin Roosevelt threw the United States Constitution under the bus, and used the public fisc for all sorts of endeavors not authorized in Article 1, section 8.
A radical and Progressive position.
He was the ultimate "Far Leftist."

7. Under Franklin Roosevlet the federal government was transformed from one of limited & enumerated powers only to the Frankensteinian monster it is today. ....the regulatory welfare state where the federal government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources, ...
Under the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; ...
Radical to the utmost....hence Far Left.



8. Under Roosevelt's NRA, most manufacturing industries were suddenly forced into government-mandated cartels. Codes that regulated prices and terms of sale briefly transformed much of the American economy into a fascist-style arrangement,
"... into a fascist-style arrangement,..."
"A New Jersey tailor named Jacob Maged was arrested and sent to jail for the “crime” of pressing a suit of clothes for 35 cents rather than the NRA-inspired “Tailor’s Code” of 40 cents."
No surprise here: FDR's New Deal was a copy of Mussolini's economic program.
Could anything short of setting up concentration camps for our citizens, be more radical???
Oh...wait....



9. How about The Far Left's Gender-Agenda., versus the Right's stand for tradition and reality: "Republicans Battle to Roll Back Washington's New Transgender Bathroom Rules"
Really....could there be a more pertinent example of the radical, insane Far Left's corruption of tradition and history???
Could there?




10. The corruption of the press by the Far Left: the JournoList Scandal: hundreds of Leftist journalists plotted to minimize negative publicity surrounding Obama’s radical ties. They plotted to smear the other side with lies. Peter Zenger....spinning in his grave





And several times, I've presented this challenge: If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

Still waiting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Clearly, Madison's reference to the Supremacy of the Constitution is sufficient to dispel any validity to the crackpot notion that the States are Supreme over the Union and the tail wags the damn dog!

The states existed prior to the union. The states established the union. The states are the principals and the union is their agent.

Which is the tail, and which is the dog?

Wrong. The states willingly put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution which ultimately makes the Federal government supreme.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


1. ... traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage.. Which one is radical?

Limiting marriage to one man one woman is now the radical rightwing position.

 

[Centinel]

Wrong. The states willingly put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution which ultimately makes the Federal government supreme.

Nope. The constitution and those laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. The federal government is bound by the states' constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1


The first amendment provides special privilege to the fourth estate, based on the premise that it will, fairly, inform the public. It was understood that there could not be an informed public without a free and fair press.

The Far Left has slithered its way into control of the mainstream press....



T

Very Hitleresque of you. What, other than government censorship, is supposed to prevent the private enterprises of the press from being whatever they choose to be?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong. The states willingly put a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution which ultimately makes the Federal government supreme.

Nope. The constitution and those laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. The federal government is bound by the states' constitution.

You're an idiot. The Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making any laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law. No state constitution is superior to the federal Constitution.

 

[xotoxi]

A) It doesn't matter what David Duke ran on, he was still far right and has never been a member of a Nazi Party. Black has, but not Duke.

B) As for your nonsense about whether Nazism is far left or far right, it's commonly accepted that Nazism is far right, that's just what it is called. Get over it. Trying to discredit the opposition by falsely linking it with Hitler and the Nazis is just desperate nonsense.

1. "...as for your nonsense about whether Nazism is far left or far right, it's commonly accepted that Nazism is far right,..."


Accepted by the uneducated, and the indoctrinated.



2. "Trying to discredit the opposition by falsely linking it with Hitler and the Nazis is just desperate nonsense.

Yet, exactly what the Left has done...and you've bought it like it was on sale.

"American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin,..."
Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

Ah, the way to defeat anyone in a verbal battle, just declare them to be "indoctrinated" or "uneducated".

Actually we have things called "labels". An "apple" is an apple no matter which way you look at it. You can call it a Manzana, an Apfel, a Pingguo, whatever you like, but it's still an apple. Labels are labels and "far right" is a label for things which are Fascism, Nazism and so on.

No, most people who look at what Hitler did, realize that he wasn't a Socialist in any way, shape or form.

Most people don't even bother to debate whether Hitler was far right or not, because it doesn't even matter. Hitler was what he was, and the label we have for what he was is "far-right". The only people who give a damn are people on the right who want to be removed from any connections with what Hitler did. I'd ask why they would want this so.

People on the left don't try and distance themselves from someone like Stalin, they call him far-left, but don't feel that far-left has much to do with the center left of politics, nor even things like Socialism.

So you can quote someone who you think agrees with you. So what? It's their opinion. That still doesn't take away from the fact that labels are labels.

"No, most people who look at what Hitler did, realize that he wasn't a Socialist in any way, shape or form."

Gads, you're an imbecile.

". ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?"
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

Ah so it'a all in the name.......because everyone knows North Korea, aka
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea", is a Democratic Republic.

The idea that there is no far right is rejected as ridiculous as if you were to say there is no far left.

I didn't use the name to prove the point.

I used ten specific examples.

These:

So far, I've given these examples of traditionally American positions...the 'center' against which to compare the positions.
Radical positions as opposed to traditional ones identify "Far" Left or Right....


1. ... traditional marriage, that involves one man and one woman, and compare that with homosexual marriage.. Which one is radical?



2. Another of those positions under regular discussion is 'prayer' in the public arena....Congress opens each year with prayer. Opposing prayer is radical....religiosity is traditional in America.


3. Is 'free speech' embraced by one side, and opposed by the other? You betcha! Obama's Supreme Court nominee says it would be be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
Starting to see a pattern?


4. While we were founded on the biblical idea that all men are created equal,
LBJ advanced a two-class nation based on skin color.
....this radical view was advanced: affirmative action. Hence, Democrats....the Far Left.


5. Here's one more radical position by the Left....fighting to elect a sexual pervert and admitted liar and disbarred lawyer to the White House: Bill Clinton
Relative to American traditions, values, and history ...championing a man of such low character is a radical position.
Hence, Far Left..


6. Franklin Roosevelt threw the United States Constitution under the bus, and used the public fisc for all sorts of endeavors not authorized in Article 1, section 8.
A radical and Progressive position.
He was the ultimate "Far Leftist."

7. Under Franklin Roosevlet the federal government was transformed from one of limited & enumerated powers only to the Frankensteinian monster it is today. ....the regulatory welfare state where the federal government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources, ...
Under the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; ...
Radical to the utmost....hence Far Left.



8. Under Roosevelt's NRA, most manufacturing industries were suddenly forced into government-mandated cartels. Codes that regulated prices and terms of sale briefly transformed much of the American economy into a fascist-style arrangement,
"... into a fascist-style arrangement,..."
"A New Jersey tailor named Jacob Maged was arrested and sent to jail for the “crime” of pressing a suit of clothes for 35 cents rather than the NRA-inspired “Tailor’s Code” of 40 cents."
No surprise here: FDR's New Deal was a copy of Mussolini's economic program.
Could anything short of setting up concentration camps for our citizens, be more radical???
Oh...wait....



9. How about The Far Left's Gender-Agenda., versus the Right's stand for tradition and reality: "Republicans Battle to Roll Back Washington's New Transgender Bathroom Rules"
Really....could there be a more pertinent example of the radical, insane Far Left's corruption of tradition and history???
Could there?




10. The corruption of the press by the Far Left: the JournoList Scandal: hundreds of Leftist journalists plotted to minimize negative publicity surrounding Obama’s radical ties. They plotted to smear the other side with lies. Peter Zenger....spinning in his grave





And several times, I've presented this challenge: If you have used the fallacy "Far Right," or never considered its usage, see if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.

Still waiting.

Absolutely unreal!!!

 

[Centinel]

You're an idiot. The Supremacy Clause prohibits the states from making any laws contrary to the Constitution or federal law. No state constitution is superior to the federal Constitution.

The states, when they established their constitution, did indeed include some self-imposed limits on what each of them may do. These limitations are listed in article I, section 10.

However, I think you continue to misunderstand the supremacy clause. It does not say that the federal government is supreme. Remember, the federal government was born out of an contract among the states that ratified the constitution.

The supremacy clause, to which the states all agreed as part of their compact, says that THIS CONSTITUTION and all laws MADE PURSUANT TO IT are the supreme law of the land.

The federal government may only act within the boundaries laid out for it by the states that created it. The federal government is the servant of the states, their creation. It is the tail, and the states are the dog.

 

[xotoxi]

This thread reminds me of something....

Aren't you the guy who wanted to claim Ted Cruz was an example of Far Right...but couldn't name a single position of his that wasn't consubstantial with American history and tradition?

Yeah....that was you!

Now you're back to try to save face?????

Let's find a point of agreement.

I believe that, from your political perspective, there is no Far Right.

No one is to the Right of you.

There. Everyone should be happy.

The other thing that we can be in agreement is that this thread is far from right.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Before you uninformed knot-it-all's start spouting your crackpot ideas about the intent of the framers of the Constitution, you should first read and FULLY understand what that Social Contract says! The Supremacy Clause means what it says since it ratification, and it's the law of the land. It is not a fantasy or figment of whim that the Nation is stuck in some kind of limbo where the Articles of Confederation are still in force and effect when the States did have the power you're claiming they now have. You are in error and constitutionally ignorant. Edify thyself!

I am well aware that the states put the supremacy clause into their constitution. I am well aware that the constitution the states wrote and ratified, and those laws made pursuant to it (and only those made pursuant to it), are the supreme law of the land.

C_Clayton_Jones made the claim that the supreme court, one branch of the government created by the states, is the only body of people who know what the constitution actually means. This is clearly wrong on its face, as the delegates of the sovereign states were the actual authors of the document. They wrote it, and the people of the sovereign states ratified it prior to the very existence of the supreme court.

Do you contend that the authors of the constitution and the states that ratified it didn't actually know what the contract between themselves meant?

Define what you mean in your post #343 by, "The federal government is bound by the states' constitution." I'm thinkin' you have really gone off the rails with this bit of sophistry. If you understand FULLY the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as you claim, WHICH WAS CREATED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, but somehow believe the State governments have full sovereignty over the Federal government, you really don't know what you are talking about. The States ceded part of their sovereignty to the National government to create the Union, hence the Supremacy of the National spelled out in the Constitution.

ABSURD EXAMPLE to demonstrate: The State of Texas passes a law that hand grenades and anti-personnel mines were lawful to possess and use to protect their property from US federal ATF agents, regardless of federal laws prohibiting ANY John Q. Citizen from possessing and using these explosive devices.

My take from what you have written is that you claim Texas, in the above extreme example made to insure no ambiguity, would have the Constitutional authority to ignore Federal statutes with the Supremacy Clause having no power to curb unconstitutional abuses by the several States. If I have that wrong, point to where and use plain NON-COUCHED language in doing so.

And just to drive this point home to you, the Constitution was NOT written by the States. One can read the first clause of the Preamble to discover who actually wrote the words between the four corners of that Social Contract. When the People of this Nation pledge their allegiance it is not to a State, a group of states or all the States; it is to the flag of the union of the United States.

 

[Dot Com]

C_Clayton_Jones made the claim that the supreme court, one branch of the government created by the states, is the only body of people who know what the constitution actually means. This is clearly wrong on its face, as the delegates of the sovereign states were the actual authors of the document. They wrote it, and the people of the sovereign states ratified it prior to the very existence of the supreme court.

Do you contend that the authors of the constitution and the states that ratified it didn't actually know what the contract between themselves meant?

ummm..... because its their job to say what the law (Constitution) is?

 

[Dot Com]

For a fence-sitter, keeping everyone happy is the
'raison d'être.'


For me......providing the truth is my mission.




Each to his own.

I'm the only one here who has used that term PoliticalChic . Stop trying to be like Mike (copying me)

 

[oreo]

1. There is no "far right" in this country.
Yet....the very same folks who poke fun at religious Americans, by comparing God with Santa Claus, go on and on.....

"F**k the far right."
MARCO RUBIO: I 'Absolutely' Support Tuition Breaks For Illegal Aliens

'Or Sanders, who does even better against the far right tard candidates'
BUSTED ! – Republican State of Union Response Carried Amnesty Pledge in Spanish Version…

'I bet this will drive the far right loons insane:'
Nikki Haley rebukes Trump in State of the Union rebuttal

'Uh.. there is very much a "far right" in this country.'
The Delusional Candidate

'... what the far right reactionaries are posting.'
Another reason Americans WANT to see Obama and Obamacare GO!!!

'...for some time now the most and loudest noise has come from the Far Right.'
Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

"...how insane the far right is."
Yes, You're A Communist





2. There is no "far right" in this country. So... how to explain the constant reference to this meme by Leftists?

One fact of life is that hearing a phrase often enough, one tends to accept it without spending the effort of examining same. The term "Far Right," used in a cavalier yet effective manner by the Left, is one of those terms.

Yet...upon examination....it proves to be imaginary, very much like the benefits of communism....or ObamaCare.




3. It is a well know axiom that, to see what the Left is doing, note what they are blaming the other side of doing.
One regularly sees the Leftists, Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, whatever....railing against the "Far Right," using "Far Right" as a pejorative, an imprecation.
And....BTW.....there certainly is a Far Left.


But I'll prove that "Far Right" doesn't exist.

It was the Evangelical wing of the Republican party that cost Republicans the election in 2012.

Why Romney Lost And Republicans Keep Losing
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
How women ruled the 2012 election and where the GOP went wrong - CNNPolitics.com

In 2012 it was women that were chased off. In 2016 it's Hispanics, Muslims, Jews.
GOP Win Will Need More Than 40 Percent Of Latino 2016 Vote, Says Study
Poll: 75% of Latinos Have Negative View of Donald Trump

There is a far right wing of the Republican party, and it is destroying the Republican party piece by piece. You are not going to win the White House with these numbers, and you'll probably lose the Senate and a ton of seats in the house. You've effectively rino's yourselves right into a Hillary Clinton Presidency, before the 1st primary vote was even cast.

 

[Centinel]

Define what you mean in your post #343 by, "The federal government is bound by the states' constitution."

I mean the federal government is bound by the constitution that the states established between themselves. The federal government is a creature of the states. The states are the principals and the federal government is their agent.

I'm thinkin' you have really gone off the rails with this bit of sophistry. If you understand FULLY the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as you claim, WHICH WAS CREATED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, [...]

The supremacy clause, like the rest of the constitution was created by the states when they established it between themselves.

[...]but somehow believe the State governments have full sovereignty over the Federal government, you really don't know what you are talking about. The States ceded part of their sovereignty to the National government to create the Union, hence the Supremacy of the National spelled out in the Constitution.

I'd be very interested to read any documents by any state delegate or ratifying convention stating that they were ceding their sovereignty when they established their compact between themselves. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

ABSURD EXAMPLE to demonstrate: The State of Texas passes a law that hand grenades and anti-personnel mines were lawful to possess and use to protect their property from US federal ATF agents, regardless of federal laws prohibiting ANY John Q. Citizen from possessing and using these explosive devices.

My take from what you have written is that you claim Texas, in the above extreme example made to insure no ambiguity, would have the Constitutional authority to ignore Federal statutes with the Supremacy Clause having no power to curb unconstitutional abuses by the several States. If I have that wrong, point to where and use plain NON-COUCHED language in doing so.

What federal law, made pursuant to the constitution, would prohibit the people of Texas, or any other state, from possessing hand grenades or anti-personell mines?

And just to drive this point home to you, the Constitution was NOT written by the States. One can read the first clause of the Preamble to discover who actually wrote the words between the four corners of that Social Contract. When the People of this Nation pledge their allegiance it is not to a State, a group of states or all the States; it is to the flag of the union of the United States.

Yes, the constitution was written by delegates of the sovereign states, and these state delegates specifically wrote that the constitution was established between their states.

Article 7:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

 

[Centinel]

ummm..... because its their job to say what the law (Constitution) is?

That is not the job that the states gave the judiciary when they created their union.

This is the job the states gave to the judicial branch of their union:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

And also:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Nothing in there about saying what the Constitution means.

And, you avoided the question: Do you think that the delegates of the sovereign states, when they authored the constitution, didn't know what it meant? Do you think that the state ratifying conventions didn't know what they were ratifying?