Which Party is the most Constitutional?

[candycorn]

When the constitution was written was a very different world. boron's ruled and the little guy was fucked...

America has gone a long ways and I hope it doesn't return to those days.

It would be much like asking who is the party that most closely follows the carvings on a cave wall. At the time the carvings were made, they were probably well thought out. Like our Constitution or any document written in the history of writing...it's limited by it's author's experiences.

The notion hat we should worship some 200+ year old business model without question is preposterous on it's surface. Yet, here we are, in some bizzaro world where adherence to the alleged best minds' work from 200+ years ago is our boundary. In point and fact we do not even have the best mind's (singular) work to act as our guide since he (no she's of course) would have had to compromise at some point.

For what it's worth the document has been incredibly durable but it no longer serves us well. It needs--NOT TO BE REPLACED--but perfected to make sure it continues to be durable despite the best efforts of the Parties to circumvent, obfuscate, and outright ignore.

 

[Contumacious]

The Constitution was an imperfect document when written and is still is an imperfect document. .

It certainly was.

Now it is actually abolished and irrelevant,

The new enhanced "constitution" states that whatever the fuck government bureaucrats want to do, whenever they want to do it is copacetic.

The "judiciary" is now a cabinet level department.

.

 

[Contumacious]

The President can not change the ACA law as written by executive order. It has to be done by congress.

Bullshit.

The ACA is not the law.

The executive can refuse to enforce a law which they determine is UNconstitutional.

.

The ACA was not passed by congress and was not held up as Constitutional by the SCOUTS?

The ACA was NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER considered by Congress. NEVER.

The ACA originated in the Senate in a session conducted in a Christmas eve at 1 AM - the bill was introduced in secret - 2400 pages which nor senator read. Senator Reid (D-USSR) silenced the Republicans through parliamentary maneuvers.

.

 

[natstew]

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

And that's the BIG illusion of the Left and Right! The Courts are no more than political lapdogs.

The Constitution means exactly what it's framers intended it to mean and no more! Example: Speech means words coming out of a mouth, not a crucifix in a jar of urine. Don't like it? Well.....the same framers gave you a way to change it. Try reading Article V.

Political Parties have corrupted our Courts to the point of total shit, and they in turn have reduced our most Important Document to toilet paper!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION]

...
Laws, laws and more laws have been passed, blurring the meaning and spirit of the Constitution.
...

When wingnuts fly you fly without a safety system.

The spirit of the US Constitution is fine and always has been even in times of great difficulty. It is why when Presidents and Congresses have strayed we have had protest.

The meaning? Gawd, you wingnuts! When Madison and Hamilton disagreed with each other and even contradicted themselves, they started the legacy we have of a debated meaning(s)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=27234]natstew[/MENTION]

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

And that's the BIG illusion of the Left and Right! The Courts are no more than political lapdogs.
...

yeah, that's why President have often said they were disappointed in their nominees going against them on principles they believed they were in agreement on.

Jesus, get a grip you internet tool

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Good luck. Neither party gives anything more than lip service to the constitution, it gets in the way of the payoffs, kickbacks, and slush funds.

good. stay home. don't vote. drop dead with your cynicism

 

[rightwinger]

When the constitution was written was a very different world. boron's ruled and the little guy was fucked...

America has gone a long ways and I hope it doesn't return to those days.

It would be much like asking who is the party that most closely follows the carvings on a cave wall. At the time the carvings were made, they were probably well thought out. Like our Constitution or any document written in the history of writing...it's limited by it's author's experiences.

The notion hat we should worship some 200+ year old business model without question is preposterous on it's surface. Yet, here we are, in some bizzaro world where adherence to the alleged best minds' work from 200+ years ago is our boundary. In point and fact we do not even have the best mind's (singular) work to act as our guide since he (no she's of course) would have had to compromise at some point.

For what it's worth the document has been incredibly durable but it no longer serves us well. It needs--NOT TO BE REPLACED--but perfected to make sure it continues to be durable despite the best efforts of the Parties to circumvent, obfuscate, and outright ignore.

There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. Its basic framework of government is still effective. The problem lies with thise who view it as infallible like the Bible. If it is not specifically in the Constitution, you can't do it

Our founders were ahead of their time in forming a Government. But to act like some 18th century aristocrat knows how a 21st century superpower should be run is ridiculous

 

[natstew]

I am so glad conservatives weren't really in power back then.

This country would have never gotten off the ground.

You know conservatives wanted to block Jefferson from buying warships, as well, to fight off pirates? They thought paying tribute was cheaper.

And this current administration has done absolutely nothing that isn't in keeping with the law, precedence or the Constitution.

That last line utterly submarines any credibility your post might have claimed.

Well no..it actually doesn't.

You folks have made this administration into some sort of outlier. Something that's never happened before.

Yet the President has, painstakingly, gone through every procedure almost every President before him, has gone through.

"Has been much more careful with the processes he uses to govern than Reagan or George W. Bush..who were MUCH more radical."

And yet..you folks keep repeating this like anyone outside your little sowing circle is going to believe it.

Reagan and Bush did not cherry pick which laws they would enforce, Obama does it prolifically.
Reagan and Bush did not re-write Laws after they had been passed by Congress and signed into Law by the President! Obama does it prolifically.

You are either a liar or an or just plain ignorant of the facts! you chose!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That last line utterly submarines any credibility your post might have claimed.

Well no..it actually doesn't.

You folks have made this administration into some sort of outlier. Something that's never happened before.

Yet the President has, painstakingly, gone through every procedure almost every President before him, has gone through.

"Has been much more careful with the processes he uses to govern than Reagan or George W. Bush..who were MUCH more radical."

And yet..you folks keep repeating this like anyone outside your little sowing circle is going to believe it.

Reagan and Bush did not cherry pick which laws they would enforce, Obama does it prolifically.
Reagan and Bush did not re-write Laws after they had been passed by Congress and signed into Law by the President! Obama does it prolifically.

You are either a liar or an or just plain ignorant of the facts! you chose!

Where did you go to school, Glen Beck Polidouche?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When the constitution was written was a very different world. boron's ruled and the little guy was fucked...

America has gone a long ways and I hope it doesn't return to those days.

It would be much like asking who is the party that most closely follows the carvings on a cave wall. At the time the carvings were made, they were probably well thought out. Like our Constitution or any document written in the history of writing...it's limited by it's author's experiences.

The notion hat we should worship some 200+ year old business model without question is preposterous on it's surface. Yet, here we are, in some bizzaro world where adherence to the alleged best minds' work from 200+ years ago is our boundary. In point and fact we do not even have the best mind's (singular) work to act as our guide since he (no she's of course) would have had to compromise at some point.

For what it's worth the document has been incredibly durable but it no longer serves us well. It needs--NOT TO BE REPLACED--but perfected to make sure it continues to be durable despite the best efforts of the Parties to circumvent, obfuscate, and outright ignore.

There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. Its basic framework of government is still effective. The problem lies with thise who view it as infallible like the Bible. If it is not specifically in the Constitution, you can't do it

Our founders were ahead of their time in forming a Government. But to act like some 18th century aristocrat knows how a 21st century superpower should be run is ridiculous

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

 

[peach174]

It would be much like asking who is the party that most closely follows the carvings on a cave wall. At the time the carvings were made, they were probably well thought out. Like our Constitution or any document written in the history of writing...it's limited by it's author's experiences.

The notion hat we should worship some 200+ year old business model without question is preposterous on it's surface. Yet, here we are, in some bizzaro world where adherence to the alleged best minds' work from 200+ years ago is our boundary. In point and fact we do not even have the best mind's (singular) work to act as our guide since he (no she's of course) would have had to compromise at some point.

For what it's worth the document has been incredibly durable but it no longer serves us well. It needs--NOT TO BE REPLACED--but perfected to make sure it continues to be durable despite the best efforts of the Parties to circumvent, obfuscate, and outright ignore.

There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. Its basic framework of government is still effective. The problem lies with thise who view it as infallible like the Bible. If it is not specifically in the Constitution, you can't do it

Our founders were ahead of their time in forming a Government. But to act like some 18th century aristocrat knows how a 21st century superpower should be run is ridiculous

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

So would you have wanted the South to have more control and power over the rest of the States?,
Because that is what the 3/5 was all about, to keep an absolute super power from the Southern Sates. If they had counted every single slave as one person, the South would have had complete control over the House and Senate.

 

[natstew]

I've traveled extensively and have yet to visit a foreign country that accepts US currency.

I'm no globe trotter, but they've always been real excited to get U.S. dollars when I've been abroad. Sometimes you can even strike up a better bargain than the official exchange rates.

It's been a while, but when I was in Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Sicily, turkey, Corsica, and Sardinia they would rather have Dollars than the local currency. When the Kennedy Halves first appeared they were worth double value on the streets in Mediterranean Countries.

 

[rightwinger]

There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. Its basic framework of government is still effective. The problem lies with thise who view it as infallible like the Bible. If it is not specifically in the Constitution, you can't do it

Our founders were ahead of their time in forming a Government. But to act like some 18th century aristocrat knows how a 21st century superpower should be run is ridiculous

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

So would you have wanted the South to have more control and power over the rest of the States?,
Because that is what the 3/5 was all about, to keep an absolute super power from the Southern Sates. If they had counted every single slave as one person, the South would have had complete control over the House and Senate.

If they treated them as a person, you would have had 4 million blacks voting in the South

 

[natstew]

The President can not change the ACA law as written by executive order. It has to be done by congress.

Bullshit.

The ACA is not the law.

The executive can refuse to enforce a law which they determine is UNconstitutional.

.

What fucking planet are you from?? The "President" signed the ACA into law himself!!

Are you in first grade? You type pretty good for a first grader, but you'll learn about the Constitution and the Duties of the President farther along.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. Its basic framework of government is still effective. The problem lies with thise who view it as infallible like the Bible. If it is not specifically in the Constitution, you can't do it

Our founders were ahead of their time in forming a Government. But to act like some 18th century aristocrat knows how a 21st century superpower should be run is ridiculous

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

So would you have wanted the South to have more control and power over the rest of the States?,
Because that is what the 3/5 was all about, to keep an absolute super power from the Southern Sates. If they had counted every single slave as one person, the South would have had complete control over the House and Senate.

you forgot your meds today?

 

[peach174]

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

So would you have wanted the South to have more control and power over the rest of the States?,
Because that is what the 3/5 was all about, to keep an absolute super power from the Southern Sates. If they had counted every single slave as one person, the South would have had complete control over the House and Senate.

If they treated them as a person, you would have had 4 million blacks voting in the South

The South just wanted their individual numbers counted, they did not think they were persons, to them they were property.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

So would you have wanted the South to have more control and power over the rest of the States?,
Because that is what the 3/5 was all about, to keep an absolute super power from the Southern Sates. If they had counted every single slave as one person, the South would have had complete control over the House and Senate.

If they treated them as a person, you would have had 4 million blacks voting in the South

context.

please read what you are commenting upon


posting from the hip/lip/fingertips ?

 

[norwegen]

There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. Its basic framework of government is still effective. The problem lies with thise who view it as infallible like the Bible. If it is not specifically in the Constitution, you can't do it

Our founders were ahead of their time in forming a Government. But to act like some 18th century aristocrat knows how a 21st century superpower should be run is ridiculous

and of course non of these loons (excepting the few that prove the rule) would demand we count blacks as 3/5 a person

So would you have wanted the South to have more control and power over the rest of the States?,
Because that is what the 3/5 was all about, to keep an absolute super power from the Southern Sates. If they had counted every single slave as one person, the South would have had complete control over the House and Senate.

To be sure, the Constitution doesn't say that a slave is 3/5 of a person. And it doesn't even mention blacks (but then, liberals don't really get past We the People . . .). It says simply that representation and taxation shall be derived from 3/5 of the slave population.

The clause anticipates manumission.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So would you have wanted the South to have more control and power over the rest of the States?,
Because that is what the 3/5 was all about, to keep an absolute super power from the Southern Sates. If they had counted every single slave as one person, the South would have had complete control over the House and Senate.

If they treated them as a person, you would have had 4 million blacks voting in the South

The South just wanted their individual numbers counted, they did not think they were persons, to them they were property.

which is why they got counted as 3/5s. thinking of them as property and not as citizens. male blacks would have had a vote