why do democrats pretend to care about the constitution

[BuckToothMoron]

Trump is urinating on our Constitution

Maybe he is trying to wash all that liberal shit on it.

 

[Ambivalent1]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of fucking liars!

You must remember, they don't see the same document you do. Thiers is "living " and "evolving ".

 

[MAGAman]

LOL...seriously?

Article 1... oversight of the executive.

Quote the part about his personal tax returns and personal business dealings where there is no evidence of a crime.

 

[forkup]

-So what you are saying is that you feel that the constitution had it wrong when they established a body to interpret the law because you don't like their interpretation?
-No you haven't. The supreme court decided that the minimum wage wasn't unconstitutional.
-You didn't show at all how wanting medicare for all instead of private insurance is unconstitutional.
-Your example of freedom of association didn't work either since you are simple incapable of establishing how exactly the Dems are going against it. Sorry but bathrooms aren't it since it's 2 competing principles. Freedom of association grants a person the right to choose gender. It also allows a gender to say we want certain restrictions. Toss in the civil rights act and your claim one way or another becomes unsustainable. That's why we have courts and so far the courts are coming down on the side of the transgenders.

No, i dont feel it was wrong. It has just been weaponized by presidents appointing for ideological purity rather than constitutional loyalty.
Not everyone blindly follows a corrupt govt. So, group of activists opinion means nothing to me. I just explained what the interstate commerce clause meant.
Medicare for all would abolish private insurance. I have stated more than once. Again, i doubt you are reading what i write.
Again, i pointed out public accomodation laws. And again, i doubt you are reading what i wrote. Repeating myself to accomodate for your intellectual laziness is getting to be annoying.

-Public accommodation laws have been upheld by the supreme court on several occasions.The constitutionality of federal minimum wage has been on the books since 1940
This means it hasn't been successfully challenged for
55 and 79 years. The composition of the supreme court has had the same partisan makeup all this time?
- This brings me to my next point. Intellectual laziness? You do realize your the one, making an argument from incredulity? I can't believe that the supreme court ruled the way they did because that's incredible, therefor it has to be partisan motivated.
-Medicare for all would abolish private insurance? Does the availability of a
hospital abolish your right to visit a voodoo witch doctor? There's a difference between not being allowed to do something and not wanting to. And even if that wasn't true how would that be unconstitutional. The government has the right and I would argue even the obligation to provide services to their citizens.

They dont have the power to ban private insurance. Thats fucking absurd.
AGAIN, the federal govt has a specific list of enumerated powers.
Its not because i dont agree with the rulings, its because the constitution doesnt say it.
Public accomodation is the exact opposite of equality. Our federal govt doesnt have the power to discriminate. Which, is what that does. Also, there is no enumerated power to regulate private property.
Why dont these totalitarians just get an amendment? If its "thebright thing to do" it shouldnt be hard to get an amendment passed. But no. They just want to abuse power. Its fuckin sickening.
We left you european totalitarians to get away from bullshit like that.
Our founders built this country in vain.

-They wouldn't ban anything. They would provide a better alternative. Otherwise people would still opt to retain their private insurance. Say I start up a business specializing in fire fighting. Would that mean I have the constitutional right to demand the local fire station to close their doors?
-And you don't agree with their rulings otherwise you wouldn't argue they were wrong. Again it's an argument from incredulity. Just because you don't believe something to be true doesn't mean it isn't.
-How is not being allowed to discriminate discriminatory? This is the purpose of public accommodation laws.
-And they don't get an amendment because the supreme court has ruled over and over again that they don't need an amendment. Let's flip the question why don't you just get an amendment, the supreme court isn't on your side.

I guess you dont know democrat presidential hopefuls are calling for a ban of private insurance.
Look, the constitution is clear. Thats all im saying.
Because it gives protective status to some but not all. Only certain things are protected. Its discrimination. By the very definition.
Get an amendment for what? For it to say the same thing it does now?

I guess you dont know democrat presidential hopefuls are calling for a ban of private insurance.

Even if that were to be true, tell me where in the constitution it says you can't ban certain businesses? For instance if I start a business selling I don't know..... SAW machineguns, it's reasonable for the government to come and shut it down.

Look, the constitution is clear. Thats all im saying.

If the constitution was so clear I would say we would not have this conversation. You still seem to go by the principle that if something isn't explicitly in the constitution it's forbidden. That's simply not how it works.

Because it gives protective status to some but not all. Only certain things are protected. Its discrimination.

It gives the same protective status to everybody, it doesn't give protective status to all things. That's a crucial difference

Get an amendment for what? For it to say the same thing it does now?

No an amendment to explicitly forbid the government to do certain things since that's what the contention is.

 

[forkup]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of fucking liars!

You must remember, they don't see the same document you do. Thiers is "living " and "evolving ".

It is living and evolving. If it wasn't we still would have slavery in the US.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nobody knows what you’re talking about (that includes you).

Why do Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment of the Constitution) the “enemy of the people”?

Dear candycorn

There is a HUGE difference between the NEUTRAL freedom of the press
and the "corporate lobbies" connected with political parties and interests on both sides
that are biasing media outlets.

The same way CORPORATIONS bypassed checks and balances by claiming PERSONHOOD,
MEDIA CORPORATIONS have done similar.

This is no longer free speech and press, which being equally accessible CHECKS ITSELF.
But the complaints are directed at PAID LOBBYING WITHOUT ANY CHECK ON FALSE ADVERTISING OR MISREPRESENTATION.

That's not free speech or press, but the abuse of it to SLANDER and commit FRAUD.
Those are CIVIL VIOLATIONS (if not criminal conspiracy to violate rights)
which freedom of speech and of the press were never intended to be used for.

 

[toobfreak]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of fucking liars!

Democrats care DEEPLY about the Constitution:

• They care deeply that it stands IN THEIR WAY.
• They care deeply that it exists at all.
• And they care deeply that it is highly flawed (in their opinion) and needs totally rewritten and updated by them.

Once totally rearranged to completely favor their positions only, they will be just delighted with it.

 

[candycorn]

Nobody knows what you’re talking about (that includes you).

Why do Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment of the Constitution) the “enemy of the people”?

Dear candycorn

There is a HUGE difference between the NEUTRAL freedom of the press
and the "corporate lobbies" connected with political parties and interests on both sides
that are biasing media outlets.

The same way CORPORATIONS bypassed checks and balances by claiming PERSONHOOD,
MEDIA CORPORATIONS have done similar.

This is no longer free speech and press, which being equally accessible CHECKS ITSELF.
But the complaints are directed at PAID LOBBYING WITHOUT ANY CHECK ON FALSE ADVERTISING OR MISREPRESENTATION.

That's not free speech or press, but the abuse of it to SLANDER and commit FRAUD.
Those are CIVIL VIOLATIONS (if not criminal conspiracy to violate rights)
which freedom of speech and of the press were never intended to be used for.

Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment) the "enemy of the people".
Democrats do not do that.

Therefore it is Republicans who are taking a dump on the Constitution.

 

[TNHarley]

No, i dont feel it was wrong. It has just been weaponized by presidents appointing for ideological purity rather than constitutional loyalty.
Not everyone blindly follows a corrupt govt. So, group of activists opinion means nothing to me. I just explained what the interstate commerce clause meant.
Medicare for all would abolish private insurance. I have stated more than once. Again, i doubt you are reading what i write.
Again, i pointed out public accomodation laws. And again, i doubt you are reading what i wrote. Repeating myself to accomodate for your intellectual laziness is getting to be annoying.

-Public accommodation laws have been upheld by the supreme court on several occasions.The constitutionality of federal minimum wage has been on the books since 1940
This means it hasn't been successfully challenged for
55 and 79 years. The composition of the supreme court has had the same partisan makeup all this time?
- This brings me to my next point. Intellectual laziness? You do realize your the one, making an argument from incredulity? I can't believe that the supreme court ruled the way they did because that's incredible, therefor it has to be partisan motivated.
-Medicare for all would abolish private insurance? Does the availability of a
hospital abolish your right to visit a voodoo witch doctor? There's a difference between not being allowed to do something and not wanting to. And even if that wasn't true how would that be unconstitutional. The government has the right and I would argue even the obligation to provide services to their citizens.

They dont have the power to ban private insurance. Thats fucking absurd.
AGAIN, the federal govt has a specific list of enumerated powers.
Its not because i dont agree with the rulings, its because the constitution doesnt say it.
Public accomodation is the exact opposite of equality. Our federal govt doesnt have the power to discriminate. Which, is what that does. Also, there is no enumerated power to regulate private property.
Why dont these totalitarians just get an amendment? If its "thebright thing to do" it shouldnt be hard to get an amendment passed. But no. They just want to abuse power. Its fuckin sickening.
We left you european totalitarians to get away from bullshit like that.
Our founders built this country in vain.

-They wouldn't ban anything. They would provide a better alternative. Otherwise people would still opt to retain their private insurance. Say I start up a business specializing in fire fighting. Would that mean I have the constitutional right to demand the local fire station to close their doors?
-And you don't agree with their rulings otherwise you wouldn't argue they were wrong. Again it's an argument from incredulity. Just because you don't believe something to be true doesn't mean it isn't.
-How is not being allowed to discriminate discriminatory? This is the purpose of public accommodation laws.
-And they don't get an amendment because the supreme court has ruled over and over again that they don't need an amendment. Let's flip the question why don't you just get an amendment, the supreme court isn't on your side.

I guess you dont know democrat presidential hopefuls are calling for a ban of private insurance.
Look, the constitution is clear. Thats all im saying.
Because it gives protective status to some but not all. Only certain things are protected. Its discrimination. By the very definition.
Get an amendment for what? For it to say the same thing it does now?

I guess you dont know democrat presidential hopefuls are calling for a ban of private insurance.

Even if that were to be true, tell me where in the constitution it says you can't ban certain businesses? For instance if I start a business selling I don't know..... SAW machineguns, it's reasonable for the government to come and shut it down.

Look, the constitution is clear. Thats all im saying.

If the constitution was so clear I would say we would not have this conversation. You still seem to go by the principle that if something isn't explicitly in the constitution it's forbidden. That's simply not how it works.

Because it gives protective status to some but not all. Only certain things are protected. Its discrimination.

It gives the same protective status to everybody, it doesn't give protective status to all things. That's a crucial difference

Get an amendment for what? For it to say the same thing it does now?

No an amendment to explicitly forbid the government to do certain things since that's what the contention is.

They cant ban businesses that are law abiding. How silly. This isnt your country.
AGAIN, if its not in the constitution, its left to the stares. You literally have no argument.
I dont need an amendment for that. It already fucking says it. Im tired of repeating myself to you. Have a wonderful day.

 

[TNHarley]

Nobody knows what you’re talking about (that includes you).

Why do Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment of the Constitution) the “enemy of the people”?

Dear candycorn

There is a HUGE difference between the NEUTRAL freedom of the press
and the "corporate lobbies" connected with political parties and interests on both sides
that are biasing media outlets.

The same way CORPORATIONS bypassed checks and balances by claiming PERSONHOOD,
MEDIA CORPORATIONS have done similar.

This is no longer free speech and press, which being equally accessible CHECKS ITSELF.
But the complaints are directed at PAID LOBBYING WITHOUT ANY CHECK ON FALSE ADVERTISING OR MISREPRESENTATION.

That's not free speech or press, but the abuse of it to SLANDER and commit FRAUD.
Those are CIVIL VIOLATIONS (if not criminal conspiracy to violate rights)
which freedom of speech and of the press were never intended to be used for.

Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment) the "enemy of the people".
Democrats do not do that.

Therefore it is Republicans who are taking a dump on the Constitution.

Expressing thoughts is shitting on the constitution?

 

[rightwinger]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of fucking liars!

You must remember, they don't see the same document you do. Thiers is "living " and "evolving ".

Like the Second Amendment?

 

[TNHarley]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of fucking liars!

You must remember, they don't see the same document you do. Thiers is "living " and "evolving ".

It is living and evolving. If it wasn't we still would have slavery in the US.

Its called an amendment process. Thats what makes it "living"

 

[Pilot1]

Democrats only care about the Constitution as an OBSTACLE to find ways to illegally circumvent it to get their anti American agenda passed.

 

[candycorn]

Nobody knows what you’re talking about (that includes you).

Why do Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment of the Constitution) the “enemy of the people”?

Dear candycorn

There is a HUGE difference between the NEUTRAL freedom of the press
and the "corporate lobbies" connected with political parties and interests on both sides
that are biasing media outlets.

The same way CORPORATIONS bypassed checks and balances by claiming PERSONHOOD,
MEDIA CORPORATIONS have done similar.

This is no longer free speech and press, which being equally accessible CHECKS ITSELF.
But the complaints are directed at PAID LOBBYING WITHOUT ANY CHECK ON FALSE ADVERTISING OR MISREPRESENTATION.

That's not free speech or press, but the abuse of it to SLANDER and commit FRAUD.
Those are CIVIL VIOLATIONS (if not criminal conspiracy to violate rights)
which freedom of speech and of the press were never intended to be used for.

Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment) the "enemy of the people".
Democrats do not do that.

Therefore it is Republicans who are taking a dump on the Constitution.

Expressing thoughts is shitting on the constitution?

Wanting to limit the freedom of the press is unconstitutional by definition.

 

[TNHarley]

Nobody knows what you’re talking about (that includes you).

Why do Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment of the Constitution) the “enemy of the people”?

Dear candycorn

There is a HUGE difference between the NEUTRAL freedom of the press
and the "corporate lobbies" connected with political parties and interests on both sides
that are biasing media outlets.

The same way CORPORATIONS bypassed checks and balances by claiming PERSONHOOD,
MEDIA CORPORATIONS have done similar.

This is no longer free speech and press, which being equally accessible CHECKS ITSELF.
But the complaints are directed at PAID LOBBYING WITHOUT ANY CHECK ON FALSE ADVERTISING OR MISREPRESENTATION.

That's not free speech or press, but the abuse of it to SLANDER and commit FRAUD.
Those are CIVIL VIOLATIONS (if not criminal conspiracy to violate rights)
which freedom of speech and of the press were never intended to be used for.

Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment) the "enemy of the people".
Democrats do not do that.

Therefore it is Republicans who are taking a dump on the Constitution.

Expressing thoughts is shitting on the constitution?

Wanting to limit the freedom of the press is unconstitutional by definition.

You said they called them the enemy of the people. Now its changed to the want to limit the press.
Make up your mind.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Nobody knows what you’re talking about (that includes you).

Why do Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment of the Constitution) the “enemy of the people”?

Donald John Trump might be Republican but he is as RINO as they come...

To say all Republicans when it is just a select few show the board how you view those you disagree with and even if you did not state all it is clear what you meant is every Republican think the Press is the enemy of the people.

Now I do believe Political Spin Doctors and Propaganda News Sites like FOX, CNN and MSNBC are bias in their reporting of the news...

 

[martybegan]

Nobody knows what you’re talking about (that includes you).

Why do Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment of the Constitution) the “enemy of the people”?

Dear candycorn

There is a HUGE difference between the NEUTRAL freedom of the press
and the "corporate lobbies" connected with political parties and interests on both sides
that are biasing media outlets.

The same way CORPORATIONS bypassed checks and balances by claiming PERSONHOOD,
MEDIA CORPORATIONS have done similar.

This is no longer free speech and press, which being equally accessible CHECKS ITSELF.
But the complaints are directed at PAID LOBBYING WITHOUT ANY CHECK ON FALSE ADVERTISING OR MISREPRESENTATION.

That's not free speech or press, but the abuse of it to SLANDER and commit FRAUD.
Those are CIVIL VIOLATIONS (if not criminal conspiracy to violate rights)
which freedom of speech and of the press were never intended to be used for.

Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment) the "enemy of the people".
Democrats do not do that.

Therefore it is Republicans who are taking a dump on the Constitution.

Expressing thoughts is shitting on the constitution?

Wanting to limit the freedom of the press is unconstitutional by definition.

No, actually doing something to limit freedom of the press is unconstitutional. We don't punish thoughtcrime in this country (yet)

 

[rightwinger]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of fucking liars!

You must remember, they don't see the same document you do. Thiers is "living " and "evolving ".

It is living and evolving. If it wasn't we still would have slavery in the US.

Its called an amendment process. Thats what makes it "living"

The amendment process is flawed

It assumes there is a Congress that can cooperate

 

[TNHarley]

When their policies shit all over it?
Minimum wage, eliminating entire sectors of the economy, freedom of association etc
What a large group of fucking liars!

You must remember, they don't see the same document you do. Thiers is "living " and "evolving ".

It is living and evolving. If it wasn't we still would have slavery in the US.

Its called an amendment process. Thats what makes it "living"

The amendment process is flawed

It assumes there is a Congress that can cooperate

So congress can pass legislation that abuses their powers but cant come together for an amendment.
Lol you can't make this shit up.

 

[candycorn]

Nobody knows what you’re talking about (that includes you).

Why do Republicans call the press (whose freedom is covered in the first amendment of the Constitution) the “enemy of the people”?

Donald John Trump might be Republican but he is as RINO as they come...

To say all Republicans when it is just a select few show the board how you view those you disagree with and even if you did not state all it is clear what you meant is every Republican think the Press is the enemy of the people.

Now I do believe Political Spin Doctors and Propaganda News Sites like FOX, CNN and MSNBC are bias in their reporting of the news...

Perhaps you’d like to address the OP (if you haven’t) when he makes blanket statements about Democrats?