We must restore constitutional government

[P@triot]

That is the main part of it as it can move with the times.

No...really....it can't. If it could "move with the times" then there would have been no need for the founders to place an amendment process in it.

 

[P@triot]

Asshole, we already have constitutional government.

Really? We do? So it is "constitutional" in your mind for the NSA to spy on the American people - intercepting every single email, text, web search, phone call, etc.?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is the main part of it as it can move with the times.

No...really....it can't. If it could "move with the times" then there would have been no need for the founders to place an amendment process in it.

Yes . . . really . . . it can and does. We have Art III and SCOTUS and the amendment process.

 

[regent]

Might read the Constitution and check on the roads built as "post roads."

Then it is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. What's the problem?

It is sort of important that we get the comments on the Constitution correct, there might be children reading this.

You still haven't mentioned why you brought it up. Can the children reading this assume at this point that you're just trying to be argumentative? That you have no point behind it?

Post roads were one of the first arguments that involved the Constitutional powers of the new government.

 

[P@triot]

Might read the Constitution and check on the roads built as "post roads."

Then it is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. What's the problem?

It is sort of important that we get the comments on the Constitution correct, there might be children reading this.

You still haven't mentioned why you brought it up. Can the children reading this assume at this point that you're just trying to be argumentative? That you have no point behind it?

Post roads were one of the first arguments that involved the Constitutional powers of the new government.

Ok. And? Is there anyone complaining about the federal government funding roads strictly utilized by the Post Office?

 

[regent]

Might read the Constitution and check on the roads built as "post roads."

Then it is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. What's the problem?

It is sort of important that we get the comments on the Constitution correct, there might be children reading this.

You still haven't mentioned why you brought it up. Can the children reading this assume at this point that you're just trying to be argumentative? That you have no point behind it?

Post roads were one of the first arguments that involved the Constitutional powers of the new government.

Ok. And? Is there anyone complaining about the federal government funding roads strictly utilized by the Post Office?

No, we have moved on to new subjects, but always continue the old post-road arguments with the new subjects.

 

[P@triot]

The United States is currently functioning under Constitutional government, nothing needs to be ‘restored’ – the notion is moronic, baseless idiocy.

People who can actually read and understand the U.S. Constitution disagree with you, son:

US surveillance has 'expanded' under Obama, says Bush's NSA director

 

[P@triot]

The United States is currently functioning under Constitutional government, nothing needs to be ‘restored’ – the notion is moronic, baseless idiocy.

People who can actually read and understand the U.S. Constitution vehemently disagree with you, son:

Newly declassified memos detail extent of improper Obama-era NSA spying

 

[emilynghiem]

The United States is currently functioning under Constitutional government, nothing needs to be ‘restored’ – the notion is moronic, baseless idiocy.

People who can actually read and understand the U.S. Constitution disagree with you, son:

US surveillance has 'expanded' under Obama, says Bush's NSA director

Dear P@triot
cc: C_Clayton_Jones

What's interfering with understanding the spirit of the Constitution is a BIAS IN BELIEF.

liberals who believe that govt exists to establish the collective will of the people are not going to see the Constitution the same way, as people who believe rights/freedoms exist INHERENTLY by human nature (as created by God) and our Constitutional laws are DIFFERENT in that they are used to LIMIT and CHECK the trend of collective govt toward taking rights, power and control over decisions involving our liberty and labor AWAY from the people.

These are two separated schools of thought. As different as Atheists and secularists think compared with Christians and Theists.

it's not a matter of intelligence, but a matter of willingness to recognize the equal and opposite beliefs of the other school of thought as VALID.

When both sides seek to INVALIDATE overrule DENY and DISMISS the other school, that blockage and bias overrides all intelligent discussion and interaction.

It's a deep rooted religious and political belief that biases how we all look at and interpret laws and means of justice. We approach it two different ways, similar to how secularists use science to establish knowledge and theists understand truth as faith based and Christians rely on agreement in spirit to establish truth and justice, since we know human perception is relative.

liberal secularists want to use Govt to establish secular truth and laws collectively. That's fine, but we have to AGREE, not impose our beliefs on others then attack and negate their beliefs which are supposed to be treated equally under law.

Govt should be NEUTRAL.

And right now, instead of NEUTRALIZING conflicts, the left is overcompensating for past right-wing swings by swinging too far left, thinking that's a just correction. But instead, it's more like two wrongs cancelling each other, and not making things right, but both being equally wrong for the same reason: both are unconstitutionally imposing their own beliefs on and against the other side. So that's not fixing things, but causing equal and opposite backlash of right against left.

We need to get back to NEUTRAL.
Well both sides think they are the neutral default. If they don't agree, that shows they aren't being fully neutral and universal. The right way would equally include all sides' beliefs, not favor one over the other.

 

[P@triot]

The United States is currently functioning under Constitutional government, nothing needs to be ‘restored’ – the notion is moronic, baseless idiocy.

People who can actually read and understand the U.S. Constitution vehemently disagree with you, son:

NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others

 

[P@triot]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Insurer Payments Unconstitutional

Gee...I've only been saying this for the past two decades. Social Security, Weflare, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc. is all 100% unconstitutional. It's an indisputable reality. Not only are none of those things one of the federal government's 18 enumerated powers, but taking the fruits of my labor against my will and handing them over to someone else is slavery - an act outlawed by the 13th Amendment.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Insurer payments unconstitutional

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know what constitutional government is?

It's government that hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

 

[regent]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Insurer Payments Unconstitutional

Gee...I've only been saying this for the past two decades. Social Security, Weflare, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc. is all 100% unconstitutional. It's an indisputable reality. Not only are none of those things one of the federal government's 18 enumerated powers, but taking the fruits of my labor against my will and handing them over to someone else is slavery - an act outlawed by the 13th Amendment.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Insurer payments unconstitutional

Take it to Court

 

[P@triot]

Take it to Court

That's what ultimately will happen. Unfortunately, you seem to think that what 9 unelected people say dictates what the U.S. Constitution says.

I don't need the Supreme Court to tell me that all of this and a whole lot more is unconstitutional. I can read.

 

[jillian]

The people tasked with enforcing our laws are the same people violating our most important laws....

Beyond the controversial ways stingray technology works, the secrecy and deception law enforcement agencies use to cloak their use of the devices is also troubling. Law enforcement agencies around the country have routinely used the devices without obtaining a warrant from judges. In cases where they did obtain a warrant, they often deceived judges about the nature of the technology they planned to use. Instead of telling judges that they intended to use a stingray or cell site simulator, they have often mischaracterized the technology, describing it as a pen register device instead.

Hacker Lexicon: Stingrays, the Spy Tool the Government Tried, and Failed, to Hide

you a)n don't know what a constitutional government is, little boy; and
b) you hate the parts of the constitution you do know; ond c)n anyone who believed in the constitution would be appealed by the orange sociopath.

oh...and idiota.... all of those things have been upheld by the Supreme Court which makes them per se constitutional. but I guess we should listen to a moron on a message board like you instead.

*pats the wing nut on the head and sends him on his way*

 

[P@triot]

you a)n don't know what a constitutional government is, little boy; and
b) you hate the parts of the constitution you do know; ond c)n anyone who believed in the constitution would be appealed by the orange sociopath.

oh...and idiota.... all of those things have been upheld by the Supreme Court which makes them per se constitutional. but I guess we should listen to a moron on a message board like you instead.

*pats the wing nut on the head and sends him on his way*

I hope you file motions with more clarity and better grammar than you post on message boards...

Sweetie - I have literally forgotten more about the U.S. Constitution than you and every single one of your left-wing, constitution-hating pals have ever known. I would be happy to teach it to you, if you'd like. Let me know.

 

[P@triot]

all of those things have been upheld by the Supreme Court which makes them per se constitutional. but I guess we should listen to a moron on a message board like you instead.

If "all of those things" were constitutional, why did the government attempt to hide them? Oops...

By the way sweetie, just because radical wing-nuts like Ruth Bader Ginsburg made their way onto the Supreme Court and pushed their political agenda instead of upholding the U.S. Constitution per their oath, doesn't make something "constitutional". It just means that at least 5 unelected individuals with a political agenda rubber-stamped the agenda of those that appointed them.

What makes something constitutional is if it is permitted by the U.S. Constitution. Which is only like 3 pages. You should try reading it sometime (or call me - I'll read it to you).

 

[BULLDOG]

Take it to Court

That's what ultimately will happen. Unfortunately, you seem to think that what 9 unelected people say dictates what the U.S. Constitution says.

I don't need the Supreme Court to tell me that all of this and a whole lot more is unconstitutional. I can read.

Too bad that the people who wrote the constitution didn't think like you do. They set up the Supreme Court to do exactly that. It's their job to determine what the constitution says. What other parts of the constitution do you hate?

 

[P@triot]

They set up the Supreme Court to do exactly that. It's their job to determine what the constitution says.

Really BULLDOG? Please cite the article and section of the U.S. Constitution that tasks the Supreme Court with (and I quote) "determining what the constitution says". Where in the hell did they put in the U.S. Constitution that the Supreme Court was "set up to do exactly that"?

Don't worry stupid - I'll wait.

 

[BULLDOG]

They set up the Supreme Court to do exactly that. It's their job to determine what the constitution says.

Really BULLDOG? Please cite the article and section of the U.S. Constitution that tasks the Supreme Court with (and I quote) "determining what the constitution says". Where in the hell did they put in the U.S. Constitution that the Supreme Court was "set up to do exactly that"?

Don't worry stupid - I'll wait.

I'm not going to play that silly game with you. If you don't agree that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the law under the constitution, you are simply wrong, and I have no desire to try to convince a RWNJ of facts that you have already chosen to ignore.