Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Abuse of 14th Amendment, FISA warrants, abuse of Necessary and Proper Clause...Roe v. Wade 1973...Obamacare ruling...overturning of California Prop 8 (example of 14th Amendment abuse). If you want to debate constitutional law...let’s do it.Do you know what you are talking about and are you able to give examples, or have you been stuck following bumper stickers in rush hour traffic for most of your life?The words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government
First you'd have to know what "a living constitution" is or isn't.Abuse of 14th Amendment, FISA warrants, abuse of Necessary and Proper Clause...Roe v. Wade 1973...Obamacare ruling...overturning of California Prop 8 (example of 14th Amendment abuse). If you want to debate constitutional law...let’s do it.Do you know what you are talking about and are you able to give examples, or have you been stuck following bumper stickers in rush hour traffic for most of your life?The words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government
Thomas Jefferson was a great American and a patriot.Jefferson was an agrarian nincompoop, and Hamilton gave us the success story that became American capitalismThe words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government
I told you what it was not. Opposite of what liberals think it is.First you'd have to know what "a living constitution" is or isn't.Abuse of 14th Amendment, FISA warrants, abuse of Necessary and Proper Clause...Roe v. Wade 1973...Obamacare ruling...overturning of California Prop 8 (example of 14th Amendment abuse). If you want to debate constitutional law...let’s do it.Do you know what you are talking about and are you able to give examples, or have you been stuck following bumper stickers in rush hour traffic for most of your life?The words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government
National guard is well regulatedNational Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.Tell us about those well regulated militiasThe words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government
Yes...but not lower court federal judges who want to inject their personal political beliefs into decisions.Rule of Law.The Constitution of the United States is the foundation upon which our nation rest. Rule of law is what the Founders intended. Not activists jurist from lower courts legislating from the bench.
And SCOTUS is the ultimate interpreter of that Law.
The whole 2nd Amendment is about an armed citizenry. British wish they could have disarmed colonist after French-Indian War...didn’t work that way. Lexington-Concord 1775 showed necessity for armed citizens.National guard is well regulatedNational Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.Tell us about those well regulated militiasThe words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government
Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered
The problem with those examples are yes you can say them. the question is how do you know? Doctors have a field of ethics which preclude you from telling personal info to people you don't want know, even your spouse ( I worked for Accredo and you were NOT ALLOWED to tell a wife unless she was authorized, same for husbands). Now had I don't that, I would have been fired and I could be prosecuted, because while we have free speech, we also have a right to privacy......so that is a valid question for the court. Saying you have a right to an abortion is not, it's not in the constitution. Even murder isn't in it, it's a state crime, not a federal one, unless committed on federal land.If I know your SSN, can I shout it out on main street to anyone who will listen? Or what if you have AIDS...can I tell people that you have this disease?
If you or your wife tell a friend, see a note, see you taking chemotherapy at a clinic while they are there too…etc… and get a bullhorn and shout it out on main street…they have not committed a crime? Is that the type of nation the conservatives want?
Your OPINION of what Constitution means is that of the left and is debated constantly. Obviously, others disagree with you.National guard is well regulatedNational Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.Tell us about those well regulated militiasThe words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government
Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered
The Constitution has been a living document for over 200 years
Hard to imagine we still have those wanting to live like it is 1776
The whole 2nd Amendment is about an armed citizenry. British wish they could have disarmed colonist after French-Indian War...didn’t work that way. Lexington-Concord 1775 showed necessity for armed citizens.National guard is well regulatedNational Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.Tell us about those well regulated militiasThe words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government
Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered
The tap dance continues.The Constitution protects the people from government. I hope that answers your strawman argument.And, it's understandable that you have to make a strawman argument....poor baby.It’s understandable that you’re afraid to answer the question....poor babyHow about a strawman argument?
No..it’s an example of the idiocy of everything having to fit within the strict confines of the stated words. We wouldn’t have an air force, NASA, FEMA, Social Security, Medicare, and a thousand other vital government services if we listened to this garbage.
But most directly affecting the lives of everyday people is the right to privacy that is not defined in the Constitution but is surely an expectation.
So why don’t you answer the question?
So it protects those that broadcast your personal information by making sure they can’t be prosecuted?
Can we agree that the Constitution was mean to protect the people from government?The whole 2nd Amendment is about an armed citizenry. British wish they could have disarmed colonist after French-Indian War...didn’t work that way. Lexington-Concord 1775 showed necessity for armed citizens.National guard is well regulatedNational Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.Tell us about those well regulated militiasThe words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government
Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered
Looks like you are interpreting there
More reason we need courts to clarify
We lost Lexington and Concord
Can we agree that the Constitution was mean to protect the people from government?The whole 2nd Amendment is about an armed citizenry. British wish they could have disarmed colonist after French-Indian War...didn’t work that way. Lexington-Concord 1775 showed necessity for armed citizens.National guard is well regulatedNational Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.Tell us about those well regulated militias
Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered
Looks like you are interpreting there
More reason we need courts to clarify
We lost Lexington and Concord
National guard is well regulatedNational Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.Tell us about those well regulated militiasThe words of the United States Constitution are not to be reworked or legislatively overturned by activists liberals judges who feel the Constitution is a living document. Strict constructionist view is the correct one.
Loose Construction versus Strict Construction | Conservatism In The United States | United States Government
Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered
'WE THE PEOPLE' should explain the intent, RightwingerCan we agree that the Constitution was mean to protect the people from government?The whole 2nd Amendment is about an armed citizenry. British wish they could have disarmed colonist after French-Indian War...didn’t work that way. Lexington-Concord 1775 showed necessity for armed citizens.National guard is well regulatedNational Guard and private citizens who are armed. Every authoritarian or totalitarian governments that I know of all have one thing in common...no private gun ownership.
Private citizens are not. Our founders said NOTHING about arming private citizens, a strict constitutionalist must support that private ownership is not covered
Looks like you are interpreting there
More reason we need courts to clarify
We lost Lexington and Concord
No
The Constitutions primary focus was establishing the government for We the People
The Bill of Rights, ten amendments to the Constitution, protected the people from government
You may think so, but that opinion has no affect on modern constitutional law.That makes no sense. Yes, court cases do change interpretations. Plessy and Brown are the most obvious. Marbury is another.Court decisions change its interpretation
At times, in error. So much for settled law.
Marbury v Madison is the mistake that set the course for where we find ourselves today.
The United States Constitution is, indeed, a "living, breathing document" - subject to evolved interpretation as the nature and needs of the Republic change.
And, of course, the Supreme Court is the Ultimate Authority for its interpretation.
If, in the future, the Court overturns Roe v Wade or other LibProg Sacred Cows, then, that too, is an evolving interpretation based upon the nature and needs of the Republic.
The Founding Fathers did not intend the Constitution to be a Perpetual Straight-Jacket.
We are now embarking upon an era in which the Court will serve up decisions more in line with Conservative rather than Liberal values.
Checks and balances, on an ongoing basis.
LibProgs go too far, then Conservatives checkmate them for a while.
Eventually, we'll rinse-and-repeat the entire cycle, over a generation or two or three.
