Do you support the Constitution?

[jillian]

Not do you think it is followed, or will it ever be followed, or anything like that.

But as an ideological position, do you believe the laws outlined in the Constitution should constrain the government and politicians in what they're able to do?

Do you think if something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?

Yes or no?

the constitution is supposed to be read to most broadly allow individual liberties. if it were about "constraining government" there wouldn't be broadly written commerce and general welfare clauses.

don't you mean to ask "if you think something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?"

and the answer is no. it's constitutional until the court says its not, after appropriate challenge. no one cares what you, i or the idiot down the street thinks about whether an act is constitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

the constitution is supposed to be read to most broadly allow individual liberties. if it were about "constraining government" there wouldn't be broadly written commerce and general welfare clauses.

You mean "clauses broadly interpreted by liberals interested in gaining and manitaining as much political power as they can". As WRITTEN the powers are specific and restrained; the entire constitution is written to afford the federal government the LEAST amount of power possible, with the remaining powers in the hands of the states.

 

[tigerbob]

With all the imperfections and interpretations it is still be best thing going. What other country did what Americans did. It is the non-Americans that live here that are creating the problems and some of them have been elected to public office. Take your pick.

I haven't created any problems I'm aware of, but then again I've never run for office so maybe I'm just not trying hard enough.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Not do you think it is followed, or will it ever be followed, or anything like that.

But as an ideological position, do you believe the laws outlined in the Constitution should constrain the government and politicians in what they're able to do?

Do you think if something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?

Yes or no?

Yes.

 

[rightwinger]

So what do you do when the enemy doesn't follow that treaty?
I think beheading is much worse than waterboarding.

You don't set the bar very high on your moral compass do you?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Not do you think it is followed, or will it ever be followed, or anything like that.

But as an ideological position, do you believe the laws outlined in the Constitution should constrain the government and politicians in what they're able to do?

Do you think if something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?

Yes or no?

the constitution is supposed to be read to most broadly allow individual liberties. if it were about "constraining government" there wouldn't be broadly written commerce and general welfare clauses.

don't you mean to ask "if you think something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?"

and the answer is no. it's constitutional until the court says its not, after appropriate challenge. no one cares what you, i or the idiot down the street thinks about whether an act is constitutional.

LOL you reminded me of something...can you watch youtubes?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7SpA2Qe3FM]YouTube - Constitution: Original Intent Vs Living Document - Ed Vieira[/ame]

 

[Seawytch]

Support it? I've sworn more than one oath to defend it.

Which version?

There's only one version (that has been ratified numerous times). Are you sure you aren't thinking of the Bible?

 

[Avatar4321]

I made an oath to support it and i intend to fight for it as long as I live.

 

[JBeukema]

Actually, Sea, it was never ratified at all. Congress and the States did not have identical documents

 

[candycorn]

Not do you think it is followed, or will it ever be followed, or anything like that.

But as an ideological position, do you believe the laws outlined in the Constitution should constrain the government and politicians in what they're able to do?

Do you think if something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?

Yes or no?

Yes. The constitution is a sound basis for government, and the ability to enact amendments keeps it that way.

Not saying it's perfect, but sound.

Shouldn't we try to perfect it then?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. We are subject to the rule of law, not men; the principles codified in the Constitution protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

Our rights predate the Constitution and government – we come by them naturally by virtue of our humanity. The Constitution and government did not ‘give’ us our rights, they can be taken by no man or government. This is the fundamental tenet expressed by the 14th Amendment.

As Mr. Justice Kennedy so eloquently noted:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

Lawrence v. Texas, 2003

 

[sparky]

i'm sure a few of you got this e-mail>

Proposed 28th Amendment - Urban Legends

 

[Charles_Main]

Yet another "I'm ferr FREEDUMB" thread by a radical RW poster?

I'm shocked, I say....SHOCKED!!!

Toss around some more Racial Stereo Types like Ferr there bud.

Marcatl is a closed minded Bigot who has predetermined notions of what everyone else thinks, and he knows how Right wingers think because Rachel Madcow told him.


I'm Shocked, I say.....Shocked!!!

The fact that you consider the idea of asking people if they believe the government should be constrained by the Constitution is an idea only held by the "Radical RW" Tells us all we need to know about you!

 

[Avatar4321]

Not do you think it is followed, or will it ever be followed, or anything like that.

But as an ideological position, do you believe the laws outlined in the Constitution should constrain the government and politicians in what they're able to do?

Do you think if something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?

Yes or no?

the constitution is supposed to be read to most broadly allow individual liberties. if it were about "constraining government" there wouldn't be broadly written commerce and general welfare clauses.

don't you mean to ask "if you think something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?"

and the answer is no. it's constitutional until the court says its not, after appropriate challenge. no one cares what you, i or the idiot down the street thinks about whether an act is constitutional.

There aren't broadly written interstate commerce and welfare clauses. I can't figure out why you don't know this. It's basic Constitutional law and Federal Civil Procedure. The Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

And if previous courts have ignored the Constitution, that doesn't make the actions constitutional because the Constitutional doesn't change except through amendments no matter what kind of mental gymnastics are being played.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not do you think it is followed, or will it ever be followed, or anything like that.

But as an ideological position, do you believe the laws outlined in the Constitution should constrain the government and politicians in what they're able to do?

Do you think if something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?

Yes or no?

Yes. The constitution is a sound basis for government, and the ability to enact amendments keeps it that way.

Not saying it's perfect, but sound.

Shouldn't we try to perfect it then?

The system is only as perfect as the people in it.

If you want to perfect the system, start by perfecting yourself.

 

[hortysir]

Not do you think it is followed, or will it ever be followed, or anything like that.

But as an ideological position, do you believe the laws outlined in the Constitution should constrain the government and politicians in what they're able to do?

Do you think if something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?

Yes or no?

I swore my oath

And I take my Constitution literally, thank you

 

[jillian]

Not do you think it is followed, or will it ever be followed, or anything like that.

But as an ideological position, do you believe the laws outlined in the Constitution should constrain the government and politicians in what they're able to do?

Do you think if something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?

Yes or no?

the constitution is supposed to be read to most broadly allow individual liberties. if it were about "constraining government" there wouldn't be broadly written commerce and general welfare clauses.

don't you mean to ask "if you think something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?"

and the answer is no. it's constitutional until the court says its not, after appropriate challenge. no one cares what you, i or the idiot down the street thinks about whether an act is constitutional.

There aren't broadly written interstate commerce and welfare clauses. I can't figure out why you don't know this. It's basic Constitutional law and Federal Civil Procedure. The Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

And if previous courts have ignored the Constitution, that doesn't make the actions constitutional because the Constitutional doesn't change except through amendments no matter what kind of mental gymnastics are being played.

your first sentence is either totally uninformed or an outright lie. which is it?

you think the justies haven't known anything for over 200 years and people who've know nothing about the constitution or how it's construed suddenly are going to correct what they've done?

that's beyond absurd.

 

[jillian]

Not do you think it is followed, or will it ever be followed, or anything like that.

But as an ideological position, do you believe the laws outlined in the Constitution should constrain the government and politicians in what they're able to do?

Do you think if something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?

Yes or no?

I swore my oath

And I take my Constitution literally, thank you

if you take your constitution "literally", what does "equal protection under the law" mean?

i know the rightwingnuts love saying they know what the constitution means because they've read it, but given that the constitution actually requires thought and not mindless repetition of stupid catch phrases, what is it?

i'll wait.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There aren't broadly written interstate commerce and welfare clauses. I can't figure out why you don't know this. It's basic Constitutional law and Federal Civil Procedure. The Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

And if previous courts have ignored the Constitution, that doesn't make the actions constitutional because the Constitutional doesn't change except through amendments no matter what kind of mental gymnastics are being played.

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

[jillian]

There aren't broadly written interstate commerce and welfare clauses. I can't figure out why you don't know this. It's basic Constitutional law and Federal Civil Procedure. The Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

And if previous courts have ignored the Constitution, that doesn't make the actions constitutional because the Constitutional doesn't change except through amendments no matter what kind of mental gymnastics are being played.

What on Earth are you talking about?

he's saying he's smarter than 200 plus years of justices. they don't know anything. only he and his pretend constitutionalists do.