A Serious Question about the GOP and the Tea Party

[Big Fitz]

In theory we're not even a political party we're the defenders of liberty and we're defending a document…

Well, you’re doing a very poor job of it, you first need to understand the meaning of the Founding Document before you can ‘defend’ it.

And this is also ironic, given the fact I spend most of my time defending the Constitution from members of the TPM and the right in genera. As, for example, when Michele Bachmann states that the Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and State is a ‘myth,’ when in McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 (1948), the Court affirmed that very principle using those exact words.

The TPM needs to understand the Constitution in the context of its case law, not some made up fantasy of what you think it is or wish it would be.

A LINK to Michelle Bachmann stating that there is no separation between church and state--as is written in the US Constitution?

There isn't in the constitution, in this Bachmann is absolutely correct if she actually said such a thing. But since most of what's attributed to her is bogus, this would take some confirmation from real news sources, not blogs and agenda sites.

Separation of Church and State resulting in the prohibition of religion in all things government is a lie that's been perpetuated since the 1960's by the left. The only mention of a separation of Church and State is in Federalist Papers #41, and it is only 2 sentences long pertaining to preventing a state run religion similar to the Anglican church. The first Amendment prevents such a practice from ever occurring (Although it has been abused to infringe on Christian's free speech now for about 30 years or so).

The default status of the first amendment is NOT atheism. There are copies of the US Constitution on line. So, if this mythical prohibition DOES exist in that document, how about you post the link, hhmmm?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In theory we're not even a political party we're the defenders of liberty and we're defending a document…

Well, you’re doing a very poor job of it, you first need to understand the meaning of the Founding Document before you can ‘defend’ it.

And this is also ironic, given the fact I spend most of my time defending the Constitution from members of the TPM and the right in genera. As, for example, when Michele Bachmann states that the Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and State is a ‘myth,’ when in McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 (1948), the Court affirmed that very principle using those exact words.

The TPM needs to understand the Constitution in the context of its case law, not some made up fantasy of what you think it is or wish it would be.

There is no such word useage in the U.S. Constitution seperation of Church and state.

 

[Charles_Main]

I wonder if these two "parties" will split during the 2012 Election or unite.

If they each have a candidate to run, along with the democrats and the libertarians, what do you think will happen in the election?

Or do you think the two (GOP and Tea Party) will come together and run one person?

If they are divided, and each runs someone on their ticket, won't that divide the party base of the conservative movement?

They will not split, the Tea Party is not even a Party, its a movement with in a party.

Me Personally I almost wish they would, though deep down I know it would mean many Democrat victories if they did. I just wish they would because I want a true Fiscal Conservative, small government party, that is not beholden to the Far right Social Conservatives and can attract Independents and dejected democrats.

I don't think there are many in the tea party movement in this country that are real interested in social conservatism. Their number one concern is just what you stated you want. Fiscal responsibility--and a smaller less intrusive government.

Even if you are right, as long as they try and be with in the Republican party. They will be compromising with Social Conservatives and Liberal Spending Republicans.

 

[Charles_Main]

Well, you’re doing a very poor job of it, you first need to understand the meaning of the Founding Document before you can ‘defend’ it.

And this is also ironic, given the fact I spend most of my time defending the Constitution from members of the TPM and the right in genera. As, for example, when Michele Bachmann states that the Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and State is a ‘myth,’ when in McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 (1948), the Court affirmed that very principle using those exact words.

The TPM needs to understand the Constitution in the context of its case law, not some made up fantasy of what you think it is or wish it would be.

A LINK to Michelle Bachmann stating that there is no separation between church and state--as is written in the US Constitution?

Why do you need a quote? What she said is true. There are only a few short lines about the Subject in the Constitution, and only the most extreme interpretation of them would lead someone to believe it means anything more than "Congress shall pass no law concerning the establishment of Religion." Period.

Notice it does not say, Church and state must at all times remain Seperate, and it is a violation of the constitution to say have the 10 Commandments on a court room wall, or a sitting governor Having a voluntary Prey meeting. Yet Liberals interpret those 10 words to mean no signs of religion at all on Federal Land, No Praying in Government buildings, ETC ETC. Even though it actually says CONGRESS, not the government, and it actually says Pass no law, Not Have no symbols.

Clear thinking people understand what that means. It simply is saying we can not have an official Religion. Congress can't pass a law and say we must all be this or that. Nowhere in that does it say we must go to the extremes liberals advocate daily in it's interpretation.

 

[Foxfyre]

The TEA Party is not a political party - it is a political movement.

So they don't have candidates they want to run in 2012? They will unite with the GOP during the election to endorse whomever they choose?

This is confusing to me. I see a lot of 'attacking' already between the two 'movements' already (a lot of the threads here are based on that) so that's why I was wondering how it's going to work in 2012.

I didn't have time to read the whole thread and have hospital duty at o-dark-thirty in he morning, but I wanted to chime in here. The Tea Party is not a political party--it is a grass root spirit made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and other groups who are united in one cause: To restore our liberties and Constitutional and fiscal integrity. They do not get embroiled in social or global issues though individual members will of course have opinions on those things.

The Tea Party movement has been supporting candidates who embrace these Tea Party ideals and they don't care what party such candidates represent. They have not gone after the GOP but rather GOP candidates fall all over themselves to endear themselves to the Tea Party to generate support from the millions of likely voters who are associated with this movement. Fewer Democratic candidates have done so as Democrats do not support the smaller government with less power that the Tea Party promotes.

Many in the GOP did NOT embrace Tea Party principles in this last debt ceiling debacle and no doubt some will not enjoy Tea Party support in the next election. I think we are ripe for a third party candidate and I wouldn't be surprised if we don't get one, but I think it more likely that the Tea Party will continue to try to reform the GOP as its best hope to stop the fiscal insanity the current administration seems hell bent on continuing.

 

[Missourian]

They will not split, the Tea Party is not even a Party, its a movement with in a party.

Me Personally I almost wish they would, though deep down I know it would mean many Democrat victories if they did. I just wish they would because I want a true Fiscal Conservative, small government party, that is not beholden to the Far right Social Conservatives and can attract Independents and dejected democrats.

I don't think there are many in the tea party movement in this country that are real interested in social conservatism. Their number one concern is just what you stated you want. Fiscal responsibility--and a smaller less intrusive government.

Even if you are right, as long as they try and be with in the Republican party. They will be compromising with Social Conservatives and Liberal Spending Republicans.

Without social conservatives, neither the Republicans nor the Tea Party would ever defeat the Democrats again.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I wonder if these two "parties" will split during the 2012 Election or unite.

If they each have a candidate to run, along with the democrats and the libertarians, what do you think will happen in the election?

Or do you think the two (GOP and Tea Party) will come together and run one person?

If they are divided, and each runs someone on their ticket, won't that divide the party base of the conservative movement?

They will not split, the Tea Party is not even a Party, its a movement with in a party.

Me Personally I almost wish they would, though deep down I know it would mean many Democrat victories if they did. I just wish they would because I want a true Fiscal Conservative, small government party, that is not beholden to the Far right Social Conservatives and can attract Independents and dejected democrats.

I don't think there are many in the tea party movement in this country that are real interested in social conservatism. Their number one concern is just what you stated you want. Fiscal responsibility--and a smaller less intrusive government.

Our Bill of Rights never implies conservative thought............

One doesn't have to be "conservative" to acknowledge the premise of our society.

Conservatism just happens to be a trait of the block.

 

[Missourian]

A LINK to Michelle Bachmann stating that there is no separation between church and state--as is written in the US Constitution?

Why do you need a quote? What she said is true. There are only a few short lines about the Subject in the Constitution, and only the most extreme interpretation of them would lead someone to believe it means anything more than "Congress shall pass no law concerning the establishment of Religion." Period.

Notice it does not say, Church and state must at all times remain Seperate, and it is a violation of the constitution to say have the 10 Commandments on a court room wall, or a sitting governor Having a voluntary Prey meeting. Yet Liberals interpret those 10 words to mean no signs of religion at all on Federal Land, No Praying in Government buildings, ETC ETC. Even though it actually says CONGRESS, not the government, and it actually says Pass no law, Not Have no symbols.

Clear thinking people understand what that means. It simply is saying we can not have an official Religion. Congress can't pass a law and say we must all be this or that. Nowhere in that does it say we must go to the extremes liberals advocate daily in it's interpretation.

That's right...the "Wall of separation" comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to a minister.

The term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. The original text reads: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state​

 

[Mr.Nick]

I don't think there are many in the tea party movement in this country that are real interested in social conservatism. Their number one concern is just what you stated you want. Fiscal responsibility--and a smaller less intrusive government.

Even if you are right, as long as they try and be with in the Republican party. They will be compromising with Social Conservatives and Liberal Spending Republicans.

Without social conservatives, neither the Republicans nor the Tea Party would ever defeat the Democrats again.

Maybe now........I don't believe that assertion will hold true 10 years from now.

 

[Foxfyre]

A LINK to Michelle Bachmann stating that there is no separation between church and state--as is written in the US Constitution?

Why do you need a quote? What she said is true. There are only a few short lines about the Subject in the Constitution, and only the most extreme interpretation of them would lead someone to believe it means anything more than "Congress shall pass no law concerning the establishment of Religion." Period.

Notice it does not say, Church and state must at all times remain Seperate, and it is a violation of the constitution to say have the 10 Commandments on a court room wall, or a sitting governor Having a voluntary Prey meeting. Yet Liberals interpret those 10 words to mean no signs of religion at all on Federal Land, No Praying in Government buildings, ETC ETC. Even though it actually says CONGRESS, not the government, and it actually says Pass no law, Not Have no symbols.

Clear thinking people understand what that means. It simply is saying we can not have an official Religion. Congress can't pass a law and say we must all be this or that. Nowhere in that does it say we must go to the extremes liberals advocate daily in it's interpretation.

That's right...the "Wall of separation" comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to a minister.

And the letter itself was to reassure the Baptists involved that they had nothing to fear from their federal government. The 'wall' is to protect the church from the government; not to keep the church out of government. The Founders, to a man, believed the Constitution would work for only a mostly religious and virtuous people, but they were absolutely committed that the federal government would have no say in what the people considered to be religious or virtuous.

 

[Mr.Nick]

A LINK to Michelle Bachmann stating that there is no separation between church and state--as is written in the US Constitution?

Why do you need a quote? What she said is true. There are only a few short lines about the Subject in the Constitution, and only the most extreme interpretation of them would lead someone to believe it means anything more than "Congress shall pass no law concerning the establishment of Religion." Period.

Notice it does not say, Church and state must at all times remain Seperate, and it is a violation of the constitution to say have the 10 Commandments on a court room wall, or a sitting governor Having a voluntary Prey meeting. Yet Liberals interpret those 10 words to mean no signs of religion at all on Federal Land, No Praying in Government buildings, ETC ETC. Even though it actually says CONGRESS, not the government, and it actually says Pass no law, Not Have no symbols.

Clear thinking people understand what that means. It simply is saying we can not have an official Religion. Congress can't pass a law and say we must all be this or that. Nowhere in that does it say we must go to the extremes liberals advocate daily in it's interpretation.

That's right...the "Wall of separation" comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to a minister.

Bingo...

It's kind of odd or ironic actually that progressives continually cite Jefferson.

They're only partial to the man - Thomas Jefferson would be on the Tea Party bandwagon if he was alive today.

Progressives confuse opposition to theocracy in a letter with opposition to religion.

Thats fucking stupid...

I'm tired of Jefferson being used to promote an agenda.

 

[JamesMorrison]

As of yet I have not seen any serious effort to form a formal third party that would represent the TEA party in body and spirit.

Never heard of the Libertarian Party, have you?

Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government

Uh, yes I actually have! But, given the original question posed at the beginning of this thread, what is your point here? Is it not a possibility that, as the original question explicitly asks, the TEA party would run its own candidate?

JM

 

[Oddball]

As of yet I have not seen any serious effort to form a formal third party that would represent the TEA party in body and spirit.

Never heard of the Libertarian Party, have you?

Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government

Uh, yes I actually have! But, given the original question posed at the beginning of this thread, what is your point here? Is it not a possibility that, as the original question explicitly asks, the TEA party would run its own candidate?

JM

The TP isn't a political party....They're looking to be a major influence in or entirely take over the GOP.

At this point in time, I don't see where they could be too much harm to that pack of country clubber old coots.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't think there are many in the tea party movement in this country that are real interested in social conservatism. Their number one concern is just what you stated you want. Fiscal responsibility--and a smaller less intrusive government.

Even if you are right, as long as they try and be with in the Republican party. They will be compromising with Social Conservatives and Liberal Spending Republicans.

Without social conservatives, neither the Republicans nor the Tea Party would ever defeat the Democrats again.

social conservatives are the worst of anyone they are wolves in sheeps clothing. They are nothiung but a progressive with an R attached to the political affillation. If you think the guberment is the only thing thaT WILL MAKE THINGS BETTER THEN YOU ARE JUST A PLAIN OLD PROGRESSIVE STATIST.

 

[Foxfyre]

Waving "hi" to JamesMorrison, I agree that the Tea Party has not so far given serious thought to forming a third party and running their own candidates. They are interesting in results and 'winning' is not an acceptable goal if it does not result in a turn around of our nation's most disastrous actions and policies.

Tea Party is a state of mind and principled concept more than an ideology. As is conservatism for that matter. Certainly all Tea Partiers do not embrace all the tenets of conservatism, but they all do share principle goals of re-establishing civil liberties, restoring fiscal responsibility and stability, and embracing more of the Constitutional original intent for the role of the Federal Government.

Accusations of racism hasn't been working too well for Tea Party opponents to accuse the Tea Party because the Tea Party has attracted people from all walks of life and has shown no preferences for one 'race' or 'group' over another. If the candidate has the track record and the vision for Tea Party initiatives, the candidate gets their suppot.

So, it seems the new assigned designation to demonize the Tea Party is to call them terrorists and accuse them of terrorism.

Which is ludicrous and highly offensive to me because it first is so hateful, and second trivializes real terrorism and that should be offensive to everybody.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

…but they all do share principle goals of re-establishing civil liberties, restoring fiscal responsibility and stability, and embracing more of the Constitutional original intent for the role of the Federal Government.

You and others on the right continue to make this and similar statements without providing specific examples, making such statements meaningless – and the TPM/conservatism meaningless as well.

Indeed, you refer to ‘re-establishing civil liberties’ when in fact Americans enjoy greater civil liberties now than at any time in our Nation’s history. The Lawrence ruling in 2003 was a great victory for advocates of civil liberties, for example.

You also refer to ‘the Constitutional original intent for the role of the Federal Government’ without defining what that ‘intent’ is, much less citing case law in support of that ‘intent.’

Until such time as members of the TPM are ready to engage in substantive, meaningful debate as to the meaning of the Constitution in the context of settled case law, any statements such as yours above are irrelevant and empty.

 

[JamesMorrison]

The TP isn't a political party....They're looking to be a major influence in or entirely take over the GOP.

I totally agree.

At this point in time, I don't see where they could be too much harm to that pack of country clubber old coots.

Actually, I would go a bit further here. I perceive a revitalization and renewal (via TEA party influence) of that GOP "pack" that has moved, until recently, quite far away from their original small government and protection of individual liberties platform. Far from harmful, however, is the very real (TEA party) influence on the GOP. When have we last seen Washington wrangling over how much to cut government spending? When was the last time we even broached the subject of a BBA (Balanced Budget Amendment)? Now, with the latest deal, we are told that both the House and the Senate will actually put our representatives on record as to whether they favor balancing the national budget with an actual vote (sometime before or in October of 2011). Those who would deny that the TEA party has significant influence on the conversation in Washington are not paying attention or, simply, in denial.

JM

 

[Mr.Nick]

…but they all do share principle goals of re-establishing civil liberties, restoring fiscal responsibility and stability, and embracing more of the Constitutional original intent for the role of the Federal Government.

You and others on the right continue to make this and similar statements without providing specific examples, making such statements meaningless – and the TPM/conservatism meaningless as well.

Indeed, you refer to ‘re-establishing civil liberties’ when in fact Americans enjoy greater civil liberties now than at any time in our Nation’s history. The Lawrence ruling in 2003 was a great victory for advocates of civil liberties, for example.

You also refer to ‘the Constitutional original intent for the role of the Federal Government’ without defining what that ‘intent’ is, much less citing case law in support of that ‘intent.’

Until such time as members of the TPM are ready to engage in substantive, meaningful debate as to the meaning of the Constitution in the context of settled case law, any statements such as yours above are irrelevant and empty.

Ron Paul is a perfect example...

Look at his congressional voting record.

There are 535 members of congress and 20 of them vote libertarian...

What do you expect?

20 out of 535.

 

[Greenbeard]

…but they all do share principle goals of re-establishing civil liberties, restoring fiscal responsibility and stability, and embracing more of the Constitutional original intent for the role of the Federal Government.

You and others on the right continue to make this and similar statements without providing specific examples, making such statements meaningless – and the TPM/conservatism meaningless as well.

And I suppose you think the Superman Party's dedication to policies based on the principles of truth, justice and the American way is similarly vacuous and ill-defined? Everyone's a critic!

 

[Mr.Nick]

I believe in 2012 our number will grow from 20 to 100....

Only then will we have some power.