Which Party is the most Constitutional?

[bonehead]

to me, it appears all the parties spend a huge effort in discovering how to circumvent the constitution. after all, the majority of them are lawyers. don't forget, doctors and lawyers make a very good living from people's misery.

 

[Contumacious]

to me, it appears all the parties spend a huge effort in discovering how to circumvent the constitution. after all, the majority of them are lawyers. don't forget, doctors and lawyers make a very good living from people's misery.

Yes, indeed.

Their modus operandi is to pay lip service on July 4th while transgressing upon it the other 364 days.

.

 

[bonehead]

to me, it appears all the parties spend a huge effort in discovering how to circumvent the constitution. after all, the majority of them are lawyers. don't forget, doctors and lawyers make a very good living from people's misery.

Yes, indeed.

Their modus operandi is to pay lip service on July 4th while transgressing upon it the other 364 days.

.

I might have substituted the word "trampling" in place of "transgressing", but I'm just more cynical.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=46569]norwegen[/MENTION]

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.

So the complaints listed here by populists: Progressive Era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

existed in a republican utopia?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]

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.

please try and keep up?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Neither, adv. - used before the first of two (or occasionally more) alternatives that are being specified (the others being introduced by “nor&#8221 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&#8221.

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.

are you really this ignorant and uneducated?

[MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION] yep, you are

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]

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.

please try and keep up?

Perhaps you should keep up:

Article IV, Section 4, US Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

And who are you calling uneducated exactly?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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...

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.

you really don't get it -- par for the course

 

[Uncensored2008]

are you really this ignorant and uneducated?

[MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION] yep, you are

Rich irony indeed, Dainty.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Can you just imagine it...posters who think the words "neither" and "both" mean the same thing want to tell the Supreme Court how to interpret the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Yanno, I didn't ask you to debate grammar with me, just vote Democrat and go, Seawytch.

Neither means both. That's the bottom line.

No it does not....but good luck using "neither" on a job app when it would be better to use "both"...and then tell them they mean the same.

 

[bodecea]

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.

What is unConstitutional about either party? There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding political parties.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

are you really this ignorant and uneducated?

[MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION] yep, you are

Rich irony indeed, Dainty.

@Uncensored

coming from the likes of you? I'll take this as a compliment of the highest order