Which Party is the most Constitutional?

[HelenaHandbag]

Neither.

What we have is Progressive Party A and Progressive Party B. The only real argument between the two is who should be CEO (or mob boss, such as it is) of the big racket.

All of them look upon the Constitution as an impediment to be overcome or just ignored, rather than a legitimate constraint upon their power to act.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=20503]Contumacious[/MENTION]

...

too bad you have to annoy with fonts.

you might actually have something to say but who the fuck in their right mind would bother.

you give people headaches

 

[norwegen]

Neither.

What we have is Progressive Party A and Progressive Party B. The only real argument between the two is who should be CEO (or mob boss, such as it is) of the big racket.

All of them look upon the Constitution as an impediment to be overcome or just ignored, rather than a legitimate constraint upon their power to act.

I suspect that, absent a Democratic party, the Republicans would return, in some measure, to republican polity. America's government has become considerably more populist than republican since the Progressive Era, and abandoning republicanism in pursuit of votes yields Republicans at least a little authority.

 

[kaz]

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.

No, if the question is "which is Constitutional?" then "neither" is not the same as "both" in their implication. Neither is, both are. Get the difference now?

True, but that isn't the question, the question is "which is most Constitutional?" For which is most constitutional, "neither" is more accurate answer since you can't really say they are "both" the most constitutional. If they are the same, then neither is the most constitutional.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yet the framers and founders did not challenge Marshall at the time. Why? Because what he pushed was not a foreign concept. Judicial review did not start with Marshall.

No usurpation of authority there you imbecile.

Especially Jefferson, he was silent on the issue, right Dainty?

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Everyone like you keep posting comments made years after ratification and years after Marshall's decisions you loons attempt to reference.

Wee Little Tommie Jefferson was a bit weird. He was constantly told to stfu and calm down with his support of reactionary terrorists like the French. He was for an agrarian utopia that existed primarily in his warped mind (the mind of a lonely, slave holding, self-appointed tribune of the people.) and not in the history he imagined.

Marshall and Jefferson had an interesting history of confrontation, often at the expense of Jefferson's mental health, and anything Jefferson said about Marshall and the courts was taken with this well know fact in mind.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So says the one who thinks that natural law is nuttiness on steroids.
I also think that you meant to type none rather than non.
We all make mistakes sometimes, oh holier than thou critic.

natural law is as nutty as fruitcake.

natural law is a human construct, so there is nothing natural in nature about it, unless of course you are dealing with human nature

Natural laws are Cosmic laws that are not made by humans.
These laws may not be specifically taught to us but are felt by all at a subconscious level, as if genetically programmed in our psyche. For instance, whether or not specified by law, we are all aware that murder is not fair or a right thing to do.
These laws apply to all human beings at all times, irrespective of Nature imparted differences like gender and race or man-made categorizations like religion, region, culture, caste, creed, language, etc.
Natural laws are, as such, moral codes which we collectively know as the conscience. Anything which does not conform to these codes comes across as immoral or unfair and all human beings, possessing average intelligence and emotional quotients, when faced with the commission of such unfair acts suffer from what we call a guilty conscience, whether or not we admit it.
In ancient times, the validity and righteousness of the positive laws of some of the most greatest civilizations, such as the Greeks, were tested by pitching them against and comparing them with the natural laws. While drafting the laws of any nation, effort was always made to conform the positive laws as close to the natural laws as possible.


Thomas Hobbes, a 16th century English philosopher, rose to wide acclaim owing to the documentation of what, as put down by him, the nineteen laws of Nature pertain to in his legendary treatises, Leviathan and De Cive. To put it in his own words, Hobbes observation of the natural law holds that it is "...a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinks it may best be preserved." The nineteen natural laws, as observed by Hobbes (most of them in his own words), are as follows:-....every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.
...a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth, as for peace, and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself.
...men perform their covenants made.
...a man which receiveth benefit from another of mere grace, endeavor that he which giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will.
...every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest.
...upon caution of the future time, a man ought to pardon the offences past of them that repenting, desire it.
...in revenges, men look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow.
...no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another.
...every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature.
...at the entrance into the conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest.
...if a man be trusted to judge between man and man, that he deal equally between them.
...such things as cannot be divided, be enjoyed in common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the thing permit, without stint; otherwise proportionably to the number of them that have right.
...the entire right, or else...the first possession... of any object which ...can neither be divided nor enjoyed in common... may be decided upon by a method of lottery.
...those things which cannot be enjoyed in common, nor divided, ought to be adjudged to the first possessor; and in some cases to the first born, as acquired by lot.
...all men that mediate peace be allowed safe conduct.
...they that are at controversie, submit their Right to the judgment of an Arbitrator.
...no man is a fit Arbitrator in his own cause.
It is immoral/ incorrect for any person to take upon the responsibility of a judge in any case in which greater profit, or honor, or pleasure apparently ariseth [for him] out of the victory of one party, than of the other.
In case of a dispute regarding the facts of the case, it is the duty of the judge to give equal weight to the testimony of both parties. In the absence of adequate evidence, such a judge should pass verdict on the case based upon the testimony of other witnesses.
This theory, as observed from the above discussion, is founded upon cosmic principles of right and wrong which are instinctively etched upon the human psyche at a sublime level of consciousness. Whether we are consciously told or not, we are always instinctively aware of whether we are doing the right things or doing things in the right way or not. This subliminal understanding and subconscious awareness of human ethics and cosmic fair play is what guides us in our decision between right and wrong, good and bad.

"Natural laws are Cosmic laws that are not made by humans." - yes and no. If time is illusion what does that say about what we conceive as nature? And what does the cosmos have to do with the imbecilities of political ad philosophical dogma on natural rights and natural law? What rights do a rock and a plant have? No more than humans

Natural laws cannot be the human conscience. That's utter nonsense.

"In ancient times" humans sacrificed virgins to please their gods.

"Thomas Hobbes, a 16th century English philosopher" is not the last and final word on anything. That would be the nature of philosophy

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Neither.

What we have is Progressive Party A and Progressive Party B. The only real argument between the two is who should be CEO (or mob boss, such as it is) of the big racket.

All of them look upon the Constitution as an impediment to be overcome or just ignored, rather than a legitimate constraint upon their power to act.

I suspect that, absent a Democratic party, the Republicans would return, in some measure, to republican polity. America's government has become considerably more populist than republican since the Progressive Era, and abandoning republicanism in pursuit of votes yields Republicans at least a little authority.

America was republican before the progressive era?

 

[norwegen]

Neither.

What we have is Progressive Party A and Progressive Party B. The only real argument between the two is who should be CEO (or mob boss, such as it is) of the big racket.

All of them look upon the Constitution as an impediment to be overcome or just ignored, rather than a legitimate constraint upon their power to act.

I suspect that, absent a Democratic party, the Republicans would return, in some measure, to republican polity. America's government has become considerably more populist than republican since the Progressive Era, and abandoning republicanism in pursuit of votes yields Republicans at least a little authority.

America was republican before the progressive era?

Eeyup.

 

[Contumacious]

[MENTION=20503]Contumacious[/MENTION]

...

too bad you have to annoy with fonts.

you might actually have something to say but who the fuck in their right mind would bother.

you give people headaches

Too bad you have to annoy with bullshit pretexts. Instead of being a man an admitting that the facts give people like you headaches.

.

 

[peach174]

Neither.

What we have is Progressive Party A and Progressive Party B. The only real argument between the two is who should be CEO (or mob boss, such as it is) of the big racket.

All of them look upon the Constitution as an impediment to be overcome or just ignored, rather than a legitimate constraint upon their power to act.

I suspect that, absent a Democratic party, the Republicans would return, in some measure, to republican polity. America's government has become considerably more populist than republican since the Progressive Era, and abandoning republicanism in pursuit of votes yields Republicans at least a little authority.

America was republican before the progressive era?

Yes it was.
Our Constitution guarantees us a Republican form of Government.
Not a micro-managed Social Democracy of which Progressives have turned us into.

 

[peach174]

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.

No, if the question is "which is Constitutional?" then "neither" is not the same as "both" in their implication. Neither is, both are. Get the difference now?

The question was which Party is the most Constitutional?
Neither Party is Constitutional.
If the question was which Party is Constitutional, then the answer would be both are not.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

No, if the question is "which is Constitutional?" then "neither" is not the same as "both" in their implication. Neither is, both are. Get the difference now?

The question was which Party is the most Constitutional?

Neither Party is Constitutional.

If the question was which Party is Constitutional, then the answer would be both are not.

Adding the word most changes nothing. There is still a difference between both and neither.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Everyone like you keep posting comments made years after ratification and years after Marshall's decisions you loons attempt to reference.

What I like about you Dainty, is that you're an ignorant dolt with zero knowledge of the subject, but you charge ahead with great confidence!

Marbury v. Madison | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law


Marbury was decided in October of 1803, the comments of Mr. Jefferson in early 1804.

Wee Little Tommie Jefferson was a bit weird. He was constantly told to stfu and calm down with his support of reactionary terrorists like the French. He was for an agrarian utopia that existed primarily in his warped mind (the mind of a lonely, slave holding, self-appointed tribune of the people.) and not in the history he imagined.

Of course Dainty, he wasn't the hero you hold Pol Pot to be...

Marshall and Jefferson had an interesting history of confrontation, often at the expense of Jefferson's mental health, and anything Jefferson said about Marshall and the courts was taken with this well know fact in mind.

Dainty, you're an idiot - which is the most complementary thing anyone can say of you.

The fact is that the courts usurped the authority to rule on constitutionality - the people had no say, the constitution has no say.

But thank you for marching your ignorance out so that we can all laugh at you...

 

[regent]

The big problem with the Supreme Court interpreting the Consitution is that the Court is composed of politicians with definite ideas about America's politics. Those political ideas are why the President appoints the members of the Court. One of the hopes of framers was that the job for life would remove the politics and replace the ideas with the good of the nation, and that has worked with some justices. So far the Court has made few major errors and has avoided some of the political issues, and so far the American people seem to accept the Court's interpretations. Perhaps someday a computer or other program might be created to make the decisions but who programs the program and would people be content with narrow Constitutional decisions that actually follow the Constitution? The Court seems to try to keep some of their decisions in tune with the times.

 

[Contumacious]

The big problem with the Supreme Court interpreting the Consitution is that the Court is composed of politicians with definite ideas about America's politics.

Yes, indeed. The SCOTUS is populated by scumbags elitists and social engineers.

“let mercy be the character of the law-giver, but let the judge be a mere machine"

Thomas Jefferson

.

 

[peach174]

No, if the question is "which is Constitutional?" then "neither" is not the same as "both" in their implication. Neither is, both are. Get the difference now?

The question was which Party is the most Constitutional?

Neither Party is Constitutional.

If the question was which Party is Constitutional, then the answer would be both are not.

Adding the word most changes nothing. There is still a difference between both and neither.

Look it up in the dictionary.

Neither - not either

Both - One and the other; relating to or being two in conjunction

Neither party is the most Constitutional.
Both parties are not the most Constitutional.
It is still saying the same thing.

 

[Kosh]

I noticed that certain posters (far left) are clinging to a "both" option.

So obviously they want that option so why do the far left posters feel both parties adhere to the constitution?

 

[Contumacious]

The big problem with the Supreme Court interpreting the Consitution is that the Court is composed of politicians with definite ideas about America's politics.

Yes, indeed. The SCOTUS is populated by scumbags elitists and social engineers.

“let mercy be the character of the law-giver, but let the judge be a mere machine"

Thomas Jefferson

.

 

[JWBooth]

I noticed that certain posters (far left) are clinging to a "both" option.

So obviously they want that option so why do the far left posters feel both parties adhere to the constitution?

Libs (tend to) support greater centralisation of power in government as do both parties.

 

[Contumacious]

I noticed that certain posters (far left) are clinging to a "both" option.

So obviously they want that option so why do the far left posters feel both parties adhere to the constitution?

Libs (tend to) support greater centralisation of power in government as do both parties.

BOTH parties support a powerful centralized government to push their agenda.

.