Which Party is the most Constitutional?

[The Rabbi]

The CONSTITUTION failed, citizens.

It allows graft.

If you think I am incorrect about this FATAL FLAW, then please direct me to the place in the COTUS that prevents campaign finance from becoming GRAFT by another name.

So I truly do not give a flying fuck which Party ya'll think is more constitutional.

The COTUS is a joke if it cannot prevent the wholesale purchasing of our government.

You must be joking. Just imagine what this country would be like, should it ever follow the rule and letter of the Constitution. The Constitution is a failure when you ignore it, ed.

And in that, his point is made. ENtrusting power seeking humans to uphold the rights establsihed in the constitution was a fatal flaw. The document is a failure because no one pays it any respect. Therefore, teh only true answer to securing rights, is that each individual secure them for themselves. And never again "elect" a ruler into a position of authority. in other words, anarchy is the only ethical and morally sound position whenit comes to societal governance. That should be completely decentralized to the individual. Any other system is doomed to inevitable failure.

No, the flaw was that the document was written in an environment where the franchise was restricted to people with something to lose. Being invested in the system, they kept close watch on it. Pols figured out that there were more people without resources than with, and therefore more potential voters. SO they campaigned to expand voting under the spurious theory that voting was some kind of right. But without a strong base of independent voters people will choose whatever charlatan promises them the most gov't cheese. Witness today.

 

[pvsi]

Where is the both option? Poll fail.

Lol, can you not read? Does the word "neither" mean anything? Reading comprehension fail, Seawytch. The mud pit is thattaway.

You asked "Which party is the most "Constitutional"?"

Both is not the same as neither. Apparently yours is an English comprehension problem.

Seawytch, find another topic, you don't loo smart on this one

 

[rightwinger]

NO, actually, the document is pretty clear. That you believe judges are the ones who determine what the constitution is, goes to show that people have abandoned the rule of law in faovr of the rule of men. Again. Welcome to hundreds of years ago.

If the document were that clear, we would not have thousands of legal cases asking for interpretation

We? You mean lawyers, politicians and the courts? who have used every morsel and syllable in the document to forward the State agenda of more state authority? Yeah, I get that. it's what i said before. The document is clear.

Actually, those lawsuits are filed on behalf of people who believe their Constitutional rights are being violated

Hard to believe they would want to have their cases settled in the courts intead of on the internet

 

[Seawytch]

Lol, can you not read? Does the word "neither" mean anything? Reading comprehension fail, Seawytch. The mud pit is thattaway.

You asked "Which party is the most "Constitutional"?"

Both is not the same as neither. Apparently yours is an English comprehension problem.

Seawytch, find another topic, you don't loo smart on this one

I "loo" a lot smarter than you do. I understand the difference between neither and both.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If the document were that clear, we would not have thousands of legal cases asking for interpretation

We? You mean lawyers, politicians and the courts? who have used every morsel and syllable in the document to forward the State agenda of more state authority? Yeah, I get that. it's what i said before. The document is clear.

Actually, those lawsuits are filed on behalf of people who believe their Constitutional rights are being violated

Hard to believe they would want to have their cases settled in the courts instead of on the internet

Ignoratio elenchi.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

RWer is just a low info troll. Like most of the other "liberals" here. It is what it is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Neither, adv. - used before the first of two (or occasionally more) alternatives that are being specified (the others being introduced by “nor”) to indicate that they are each untrue or each do not happen.

Both, adv., pronoun. - used before the first of two alternatives to emphasize that the statement being made applies to each (the other alternative being introduced by “and”).


The. Same. Sit down, Seawytch.

 

[DiamondDave]

Neither REP nor DEM is worried about constitutionality.. they are worried about winning and power...

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[kaz]

The Constitution is what the courts say not what internet posters believe

What are the first three words of the Constitution?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution is what the courts say not what internet posters believe

What are the first three words of the Constitution?

We the people have chosen to delegate the authority to interpret the Constitution to the judicial branch.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think both of the major parties have their strengths and weaknesses in terms of defending the Constitution.

IMHO -

A GOP Strength: Gun rights; A GOP Weaknesses: Voting rights
A Democrat Strength: Equal Protection; A Democratic Weakness: Religious Expression

But as far as I am concerned neither party is on very firm footing when claiming to be the more "Constitutional" party.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The premise missing in this thread is:

The Constitution is "clear, concise and unambiguous"

The missing question is: True or False?

 

[peach174]

The Constitution is very clear and concise.

States - Domestic affairs
Federal - Foreign affairs.

The problem is that both parties thinks that the Federal should be in domestic affairs.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The premise missing in this thread is:

The Constitution is "clear, concise and unambiguous"

The missing question is: True or False?

I think the broad and not incredibly specific language is no mistake. I do believe the framers wanted to give room for future generations to interpret the rules in light of their own contemporary circumstances.

It's probably helped us avoid a string of one civil war after another.

But I do believe it is specific enough to paint a really good picture of the ideals and principles that are the foundations of our nation. We just have to color in a few of the details from time to time.

Just MHO

 

[The Rabbi]

The Constitution is very clear and concise.

States - Domestic affairs
Federal - Foreign affairs.

The problem is that both parties thinks that the Federal should be in domestic affairs.

No that isnt quite true.
Is the PO domestic?
Is coining money domestic?
Are patents domestic?

Granted, the federal gov't has taken a grossly expansive view of its powers, esp over the last 75 years. But they can because of the gray areas.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Constitution is very clear and concise.

States - Domestic affairs
Federal - Foreign affairs.

The problem is that both parties thinks that the Federal should be in domestic affairs.

Examples would be a good thing to provide to support your opinion.

 

[norwegen]

The Democrat Party is less constitutional. American republicanism has a frame of reference: the natural law. Democrats have eliminated this foundation with initiatives and referendums, effectively expanding popular government, erroneously believing that a government of the people, for the people, and by the people is a democracy.

 

[hangover]

Which Party is the most Constitutional?

Independent

 

[whitehall]

The sad fact of the matter is that generations of union educated Americans haven't got a clue about the Constitution and literally aren't able to judge the political parties adherence to the Constitution. The democrat party created and enhanced the modern concept of "separation of church and state" that has no basis in the Constitution. The concept is based on the decision by a supreme court justice appointed by FDR who was a member of the KKK. The closest the radical left can come to the constitutionality of "separation C/S" is some letters penned by Jefferson. The legality of murdering a human in the womb is based on a concept of "privacy" that doesn't appear in the Constitution. The president authorizing the execution of American citizens by drone without due process is so alien to the Constitution that is downright scary.