What the TEA Parties Want...

[boedicca]

....teabagger ... "teabagger".

teabagging ...

Get help.

 

[geauxtohell]

They do?

Are you saying no textualist and strict constructionist are on, or could be appointed to, the Supreme Court?


How do you know?

What does it mean to be a textualist and strict constructionist?

They are theories that explain how the judiciary should interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents and legislation.

For example Antonin Scalia is a textualist, who applies literal interpretations of the Constitution (within context).

The wife is a law student (about to graduate) and is an uber liberal and begrudgingly admits that she enjoys reading Scalia's opinions (until he does something that really aggravates her).

All that being said: the power of judicial review is not explicitly laid out for the court in the constitution.

There are people on this board that will argue that judicial review is unconstitutional and that states have the right to secede and that the reconstruction amendments are unconstitutional.

My point is this: if there was a complete consensus on the constitution, we wouldn't all be here bickering today.

That's why superfluous language from the teabaggers is just idiotic.

 

[geauxtohell]

By the way....

I thought the teabagger recognized no official leader and was completely autonomous?

Who drafted these planks?

 

[Samson]

A person can find pretty much anything on the internet these days, Sammy. After all, where do you find Octo pr0n?

I found "Octo pr0n?

What is Octo pr0n?

Ménage à oct?

 

[Samson]

What does it mean to be a textualist and strict constructionist?

They are theories that explain how the judiciary should interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents and legislation.

For example Antonin Scalia is a textualist, who applies literal interpretations of the Constitution (within context).

The wife is a law student (about to graduate) and is an uber liberal and begrudgingly admits that she enjoys reading Scalia's opinions (until he does something that really aggravates her).

All that being said: the power of judicial review is not explicitly laid out for the court in the constitution.

There are people on this board that will argue that judicial review is unconstitutional and that states have the right to secede and that the reconstruction amendments are unconstitutional.

My point is this: if there was a complete consensus on the constitution, we wouldn't all be here bickering today.

That's why superfluous language from the teabaggers is just idiotic.

Everyone should read dissenting opinions: They can really be entertaining, although I cannot recall reading Scalia's.

At any rate, I'm not arguing for complete consensus on the constitution, I'm only trying to interpret what the Tea Party means by "protecting the constitution."

This isn't really all that original, or superfluous, its simply another judicial theory.

 

[geauxtohell]

Get help.

Get bent.

 

[geauxtohell]

Everyone should read dissenting opinions: They can really be entertaining, although I cannot recall reading Scalia's.

At any rate, I'm not arguing for complete consensus on the constitution, I'm only trying to interpret what the Tea Party means by "protecting the constitution."

This isn't really all that original, or superfluous, its simply another judicial theory.

I realize that. I am just pointing out that it is vague, feel-good language that really says nothing.

Even the "strict constitutionalist" talking point usually means "opinions that personally I agree with" in most instance.

 

[Samson]

Everyone should read dissenting opinions: They can really be entertaining, although I cannot recall reading Scalia's.

At any rate, I'm not arguing for complete consensus on the constitution, I'm only trying to interpret what the Tea Party means by "protecting the constitution."

This isn't really all that original, or superfluous, its simply another judicial theory.

I realize that. I am just pointing out that it is vague, feel-good language that really says nothing.

Even the "strict constitutionalist" talking point usually means "opinions that personally I agree with" in most instance.

No, actually a strict constitutionalist is the opposite of opinions (or interpretations) with which the judiciary agrees. What you are descrbing is the developmentalist approach.

Meh....you should read the Democratic Party's 2008 Platform's position on Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants for "feel-good language that really says nothing." And, before you think this is some partisan rant, I'll assume there are equally Bullshit Filled portions of the RNC's 2008 platform.

 

[geauxtohell]

Everyone should read dissenting opinions: They can really be entertaining, although I cannot recall reading Scalia's.

At any rate, I'm not arguing for complete consensus on the constitution, I'm only trying to interpret what the Tea Party means by "protecting the constitution."

This isn't really all that original, or superfluous, its simply another judicial theory.

I realize that. I am just pointing out that it is vague, feel-good language that really says nothing.

Even the "strict constitutionalist" talking point usually means "opinions that personally I agree with" in most instance.

No, actually a strict constitutionalist is the opposite of opinions (or interpretations) with which the judiciary agrees. What you are descrbing is the developmentalist approach.

Meh....you should read the Democratic Party's 2008 Platform's position on Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants for "feel-good language that really says nothing." And, before you think this is some partisan rant, I'll assume there are equally Bullshit Filled portions of the RNC's 2008 platform.

I agree that both parties have a bunch of fluff. They probably also have more than 20 or so sentences that are substantive in there somewhere.

 

[Samson]

I realize that. I am just pointing out that it is vague, feel-good language that really says nothing.

Even the "strict constitutionalist" talking point usually means "opinions that personally I agree with" in most instance.

No, actually a strict constitutionalist is the opposite of opinions (or interpretations) with which the judiciary agrees. What you are descrbing is the developmentalist approach.

Meh....you should read the Democratic Party's 2008 Platform's position on Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants for "feel-good language that really says nothing." And, before you think this is some partisan rant, I'll assume there are equally Bullshit Filled portions of the RNC's 2008 platform.

I agree that both parties have a bunch of fluff. They probably also have more than 20 or so sentences that are substantive in there somewhere.

LMAO.....for what they're worth.....e.g.

The Republican Platform stated, "WE OPPOSE AMNESTY."

 

[Foxfyre]

No, actually a strict constitutionalist is the opposite of opinions (or interpretations) with which the judiciary agrees. What you are descrbing is the developmentalist approach.

Meh....you should read the Democratic Party's 2008 Platform's position on Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants for "feel-good language that really says nothing." And, before you think this is some partisan rant, I'll assume there are equally Bullshit Filled portions of the RNC's 2008 platform.

I agree that both parties have a bunch of fluff. They probably also have more than 20 or so sentences that are substantive in there somewhere.

LMAO.....for what they're worth.....e.g.

The Republican Platform stated, "WE OPPOSE AMNESTY."

Yes, they do. And I wish the Contract From America had dealt with illegal immigration, and in time it may if Congress tries to ram something else they don't want down the throats of the people prior to the 2010 election.

The murmurings are now that the GOP is putting together its own statement of commitment much like the Contract With America they used in 1994. They still have a long way to go though to convince the people that they aren't just talking the talk but won't walk the walk.

I know the 10 Key Points of the Contract From America has already been posted, but it seems appropriate to keep it right on top of the discussion in this thread:

And the top ten are…
1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes

The 10 points are expanded at the website:
Contract FROM America

 

[nraforlife]

The Tea Party Patriots are nothing new. Check out this article from the Boston Herald:

Barack Obama navigated his way into the White House on a mantra of “Change You Can Believe In.” Today on the Common, Sarah Palin will preach the gospel of Change We Don’t Want. The Tea Party patriots will cheer for a return to that monochromatic world, where Ricky, Wally and The Beav had supper served up to them every night by a mother who stayed home to cook and clean in pearls and high heels.

The patriots are throwbacks to the bad old days - BostonHerald.com

Sooooo, tell us just why you find the feral world of urban decay (which makes 'Lord of the Flies' and 'Escape from New York' look kinda warm & fuzzy by comparison) in which far too many of the young must exist today superior.

 

[geauxtohell]

LMAO.....for what they're worth.....e.g.

The Republican Platform stated, "WE OPPOSE AMNESTY."

That at least has more teeth in it than "uphold the constitution".

 

[nraforlife]

.......................If there was a 100% consensus on what the constitution truly said, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court, now would we?

............................................

The vast majority of those who see a 'need' for the corrupt version of a supreme court be are saddled with today are people who simply do not wish to be constrained by what the Constitution actually says.

The document is sufficiently straighforward that even a caveman (an honest one) can understand.

 

[geauxtohell]

.......................If there was a 100% consensus on what the constitution truly said, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court, now would we?

............................................

The vast majority of those who see a 'need' for the corrupt version of a supreme court be are saddled with today are people who simply do not wish to be constrained by what the Constitution actually says.

The document is sufficiently straighforward that even a caveman (an honest one) can understand.

Considering that judicial review has been the law of the land for 210 years, you are a little late to lodge your complaint.

 

[Samson]

.......................If there was a 100% consensus on what the constitution truly said, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court, now would we?

............................................

The vast majority of those who see a 'need' for the corrupt version of a supreme court be are saddled with today are people who simply do not wish to be constrained by what the Constitution actually says.

The document is sufficiently straighforward that even a caveman (an honest one) can understand.

Considering that judicial review has been the law of the land for 210 years, you are a little late to lodge your complaint.

You're confusing Judicial Review with Judicial Interpretation. No one is arguing that the supreme court should use the US Constitution to compare with legislation and executive order (Judicial Review). The question is HOW to interpret the constitution: Literally? Figureatively?

The Tea Party favors a more literal interpretation.

LMAO.....for what they're worth.....e.g.

The Republican Platform stated, "WE OPPOSE AMNESTY."

That at least has more teeth in it than "uphold the constitution".

Meh...toothless rhetoric isn't toothless rhetoric until the speaker has a chance to back their words with action and fails: So far, Republicans have consistantly failed

 

[geauxtohell]

You're confusing Judicial Review with Judicial Interpretation. No one is arguing that the supreme court should use the US Constitution to compare with legislation and executive order (Judicial Review). The question is HOW to interpret the constitution: Literally? Figureatively?

That's not true. There are people that very much believe that judicial review was an unconstitutional power grab. It might not be inherent to the tea party, but my larger point is that if you split enough hairs, eventually no two Americans are going to agree on what the constitution actually says.

The Tea Party favors a more literal interpretation.

Then why didn't they word their platform to say that?

Meh...toothless rhetoric isn't toothless rhetoric until the speaker has a chance to back their words with action and fails: So far, Republicans have consistantly failed

I agree with that, but at least the GOP is opposing a specific policy initiative. Like I said, we don't have to wonder what they mean by that phrase.

 

[California Girl]

Like what, eh? Lets be specific- proram/service branch/ $ you expect to save. The wasteage you imagine just ain't there. Ya wanna cut military costs its going to be pretty much proportional to headcount reductions and war count reductions.

Look, little man.... I am not here to go through the defense budge item by item with you to decide where we should cut. Suffice to say, if you clamp down on the spiraling costs that the private sector incur in development, cut fraud and waste.... you'll find more than 5%. Treat it like any business would treat its budget. If we ran government like a business - with accountability for expenditure, we would soon get control over it. The major problem with government and public sector is that they view taxpayers as a bottomless pit of cash. Because they don't need to 'make a profit' they don't care what they spend or whether the money actually achieves anything.... They spend it because they can.

Well, the TEA Parties say 'enough is enough'. I agree. Enough is enough. Obama has taken the mess that Bush left and made it 100% worse. I don't blame Obama, I don't blame Bush. I blame us - 'we, the People' sat back and let them pillage our nation. Shame on us.

You say this now, but here is what makes you a hack, YOU DIDNT SAY A WORD DURING BUSH'S HELL ON EARTH FOR 8 YEARS. Not a fucking word.

All of a sudden, you guys have "had enough". ALL OF A SUDDEN.

Just for fun, exactly how do YOU know what I did or did not say about Bush? Fucking idiot. Grasp one single solitary concept, zona.... I am an individual.... just because the left practice 'group think' does not mean that everyone does.

I am not 'you guys', I am me. At the risk of repeating myself.... Fucking Idiot.

 

[Samson]

You're confusing Judicial Review with Judicial Interpretation. No one is arguing that the supreme court should use the US Constitution to compare with legislation and executive order (Judicial Review). The question is HOW to interpret the constitution: Literally? Figureatively?

That's not true. There are people that very much believe that judicial review was an unconstitutional power grab. It might not be inherent to the tea party, but my larger point is that if you split enough hairs, eventually no two Americans are going to agree on what the constitution actually says.

The Tea Party favors a more literal interpretation.

Then why didn't they word their platform to say that?

Meh...toothless rhetoric isn't toothless rhetoric until the speaker has a chance to back their words with action and fails: So far, Republicans have consistantly failed

I agree with that, but at least the GOP is opposing a specific policy initiative. Like I said, we don't have to wonder what they mean by that phrase.

Phttttt....ok, so you prefer you lies to be easy to understand. Grrreat.

At any rate, I'd suggest you brase yourself fo disappointment. The Tea Party, is not a political party, but simply groups of individuals. Expecting much clarity from the mob is a little naive.

I'm certain there are people that believe Judicial review is unconstitutional. There are also people who believe in little green men. There's all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theorists:

You asked what "Protect the Constitution" meant in the context of the Tea Party. I gave you an answer: Literal Interpretation during Judicial Review.

 

[Rinata]

The Tea Party Patriots are nothing new. Check out this article from the Boston Herald:

Barack Obama navigated his way into the White House on a mantra of “Change You Can Believe In.” Today on the Common, Sarah Palin will preach the gospel of Change We Don’t Want. The Tea Party patriots will cheer for a return to that monochromatic world, where Ricky, Wally and The Beav had supper served up to them every night by a mother who stayed home to cook and clean in pearls and high heels.

The patriots are throwbacks to the bad old days - BostonHerald.com

Sooooo, tell us just why you find the feral world of urban decay (which makes 'Lord of the Flies' and 'Escape from New York' look kinda warm & fuzzy by comparison) in which far too many of the young must exist today superior.

I'm sorry but you sure don't know how to structure a sentence. What in the hell are you trying to ask???