There Is No "Far Right" In This Country

[ThoughtCrimes]

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?

You are just plain WRONG...and wrongheaded! Its all about powers as laid out in the Constitution. Start by reading Article I § 8 and see how much power was ceded by the States to the National government, which the states are NOT empowered to exercise. Then move on to Article I § 10.

Then there is this:
"If any organ of government seems sovereign it is the Supreme Court. It has established its supremacy over the other branches of the federal government and over the state governments by declaring unconstitutional the acts of the legislative and executive branches of government, by making the state courts inferior courts in the federal system and by determining where under the Constitution the line shall be drawn between personal liberty and social control." < The Doctrine of Sovereignty Under the United States Constitution, http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2252&context=facpub (1929) pg 456 >

Obviously, the dog wags the tail and you are flaunting your ignorance of the Constitution with your idiotic and uninformed chicken and egg argumentation. The principals of the Contract are THE PEOPLE, not the States. The Great Contract is between The People and the Federal. Not the several States and the Federal. If you can't, don't or won't understand that point the God Bless you ignorance.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

Were you homeschooled by PoliticalChica? Damn but you are Constitutionally ignorant!!!!

 

[Centinel]

You are just plain WRONG...and wrongheaded! Its all about powers as laid out in the Constitution. Start by reading Article I § 8 and see how much power was ceded by the States to the National government, which the states are NOT empowered to exercise. Then move on to Article I § 10.

I think we are in agreement that art I, sec 8 lists the legislative powers that the states delegated to congress and that art I, sec 10 lists the restriction the states imposed upon themselves and each other as a condition of membership in their union.

Then there is this:
"If any organ of government seems sovereign it is the Supreme Court. It has established its supremacy over the other branches of the federal government and over the state governments by declaring unconstitutional the acts of the legislative and executive branches of government, by making the state courts inferior courts in the federal system and by determining where under the Constitution the line shall be drawn between personal liberty and social control." < The Doctrine of Sovereignty Under the United States Constitution, http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2252&context=facpub (1929) pg 456 >

That's an intersting opinion. Wrong, but interesting.

Obviously, the dog wags the tail and you are flaunting your ignorance of the Constitution with your idiotic and uninformed chicken and egg argumentation. The principals of the Contract are THE PEOPLE, not the States. The Great Contract is between The People and the Federal. Not the several States and the Federal. If you can't, don't or won't understand that point the God Bless you ignorance.

You are wrong. When the sovereign states sent delegates to negotiate their treaty, this is what they wrote in their constitution of said treaty:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." -- Article 7

Clearly, the states, when establishing their union, made it clear that it was a union of states.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

So, your argument is an insult? Well, I won't bother going on to tell you why your assumption is just wrong. And you needn't reply to this.

 

[Centinel]

Were you homeschooled by PoliticalChica? Damn but you are Constitutionally ignorant!!!!

You seem to be the one who is ignorant of Article 7.

 

[Dot Com]

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?

They knew it would be Amended from time to time which it has and there would be disagreements as to the revised meaning.

AGAIN, the Court's job is to say what the law is.

 

[Centinel]

They knew it would be Amended from time to time which it has and there would be disagreements as to the revised meaning.

AGAIN, the Court's job is to say what the law is.

You don't think the states that ratify amendments to their compact would know the meaning of the amendments they are ratifying? It's their compact. They are the authors. How could they not know what they are writing?

AGAIN, the role of the judiciary is to try cases.

 

[Dot Com]

^ I'm done w/ this one

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Were you homeschooled by PoliticalChica? Damn but you are Constitutionally ignorant!!!!

You seem to be the one who is ignorant of Article 7.

I understand PRECISELY the intent those 24 words of Article 7. You have given them some other meaning known only to you given you will not divulge the extent of your heavenly insight on anything constitutional in any coherent manner or form. And that goes for the entire Constitution, not just your hackneyed "State uber alles" horseshit!

You're a fraud mindlessly parroting tripe from some outlandish quack or faction given you refuse to even consider anything, even from primary authoritative sources, not in absolute lockstep with your crackpot theories of Constitutional intent. You're pissing into the wind and getting your trousers all wet, fool.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

^ I'm done w/ this one

Yup! He's dumber than a stump. This gave me a real chuckle:

When the sovereign states sent delegates to negotiate their treaty, this is what they wrote in their constitution of said treaty:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." -- Article 7

Holy shit! The guy refers to the Constitutional convention in 1787 as a treaty negotiation. Toys in the freakin' attic, just plain ignorant, or both?!

No more time wasted on that fool for me either.

 

[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

So, your argument is an insult? Well, I won't bother going on to tell you why your assumption is just wrong. And you needn't reply to this.

My reply is effortless: you're an imbecile.

The Nazis had government-controlled capitalism, which is socialism and the exact opposite of free-market capitalism (where the government has little to no control).

The Nazi government had control over corporations. The Nazis also had government-controlled wages and prices as well. All these policies are the exact opposite of far right-wing free-market Austrian economists policies.

 

[Centinel]

Holy shit! The guy refers to the Constitutional convention in 1787 as a treaty negotiation. Toys in the freakin' attic, just plain ignorant, or both?!

No more time wasted on that fool for me either.

Not a treaty? What do YOU call it when sovereign states send delegates to draft an agreement which then goes back to the states for ratification?

 

[Mac1958]

When you're a hardcore partisan ideologue ("side" irrelevant), you don't see anyone past your position on the political spectrum.

You then convince yourself that the end in which you reside must not be there.

This thread is a perfect illustration of the perception distortions brought on by blind commitment to a hardcore partisan ideology.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is a fun thread to read, but because of one side's blinded ideology, not one to engage the sillies.

The fact is the states ceded their sovereignty to the national government, the Civil War sealed the deal, and the 99% have never looked back nor will they in the future.

Article III gives SCOTUS original jurisdiction on all matters constitutional.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When you're a hardcore partisan ideologue ("side" irrelevant), you don't see anyone past your position on the political spectrum.

You then convince yourself that the end in which you reside must not be there.

This thread is a perfect illustration of the perception distortions brought on by blind commitment to a hardcore partisan ideology.
.

".... ("side" irrelevant)..."

I didn't know that you fence sitters proselytize.




"This thread is a perfect illustration of the perception distortions brought on by blind commitment to a hardcore partisan ideology."
Really?

So....why were none of you able to come up with examples to counter these?

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....spinnning in his grave.




Pretty clear that the imaginary concept 'Far Right' is simply one more lie by the Left to shield their egregious, radical ideology.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The poster girl for cognitive dissonance and confirmation is political chic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


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

Opposition to equal rights for gays, including same sex marriage, is a minority rightwing opinion outside the mainstream of contemporary attitudes towards marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The poster girl for cognitive dissonance and confirmation is political chic.

She's been reduced to parroting her own crackpot talking points.

 

[Mac1958]

When you're a hardcore partisan ideologue ("side" irrelevant), you don't see anyone past your position on the political spectrum.

You then convince yourself that the end in which you reside must not be there.

This thread is a perfect illustration of the perception distortions brought on by blind commitment to a hardcore partisan ideology.
.

".... ("side" irrelevant)..."

I didn't know that you fence sitters proselytize.




"This thread is a perfect illustration of the perception distortions brought on by blind commitment to a hardcore partisan ideology."
Really?

So....why were none of you able to come up with examples to counter these?

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....spinnning in his grave.




Pretty clear that the imaginary concept 'Far Right' is simply one more lie by the Left to shield their egregious, radical ideology.

Okay fence-sitter, here's the thing: I absolutely believe that it's absolutely possible that you absolutely believe this stuff.

There is a hardcore LEFT wing partisan ideologue here who strongly denies the very existence of Political Correctness, and I think he may be serious. (!)

Of all the fascinating psychological/sociological/anthropological aspects of partisan ideology I study, the one I think I find MOST fascinating is how similar the behavior of the two "ends" of the spectrum are.

And of course, they would deny that, too.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Cas Mudde [Dutch political scientist] identified five key features of the "extreme right" –

nationalism, racism, xenophobia, anti-democracy and the belief in a strong state – based on the fact that they appear in 50% of the definitions of the extreme-right that he surveyed.[18]

Mudde lists “nativism, authoritarianism, and populism” as core elements of populist radical right political parties and associated movements.[19]


...hmmmm, any of that sound familiar, given the themes we hear in the rhetoric of the American Right?