Do you support the Constitution?

[elvis]

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.

did Kevin kennedy steal his handle?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

he's saying he's smarter than 200 plus years of justices.

In what country?

 

[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

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.

What kind of question is that Jill?

All I meant was that I have spent my time defending the constitution and this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Yes, all citizens are entitled to equal protection under our laws.
Pretty cut and dry, actually.

Or are you wanting to get into a discussion as to why this particular clause needed to be added?

 

[Contumacious]

Do you support the Constitution?

Of course.

A very TINY majority does.

Unfortunately the great majority supports the behemoth welfare/warfare state. The Parasites, the narcotized and the sheeple will go along, will not oppose, the criminal acts conducted by the central government.


.
.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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 support the Constitution, it has been replaced to a greater extent by laws that have created unending bureaucratic prisons feeding political parties and interest groups that drowned out the voice of the people.
I see little hope on this changing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

This explains why you know nothing about it, other whan what you glean - incorrectly, often as not - from Google searches.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

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

Yet another "I'm a fucking dumbshit" response from Marc.

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

 

[editec]

I'll start taking these debates about what the Constitution REALLY means when Constiutional SCHOLARS start posting here.

So far?

Nobody here seems to me to be well versed in that law.

No even the lawyers, which isn't really surprising given how much of consitutional law is really a kind of applied philosophy.

I don't think the current constitution serves us very well, to be honest.

It was written from the perspective of people living an entirely different world.

And the second amendment is the very evidence of THAT problem that I think we have.

It is describing a system of DEFENCE that no longer exists. State Militias?

Where are they?

We haven't had a STATE militia in a mighty long time.

We have FEDERAL militias in the states (national guard units) but they are FEDERALIZED in a way, NOW, that they were NOT in 1789.

No this was NOT an excuse to argue about our interpretations of the 2nd amendment.

But it is noting that the mere fact that it MUST be interpreted, (and IS debateable) ought to be the tip off that it is no longer is describing the world WE LIVE IN.

If we want to have the constiutional RIGHT to have arms, today?

The 2nd Amendment ought to read

The right of the citizens to own and carry arms will not be abridged.


No mention of state militias is necessary or would be GERMANE to that sentiment. It's CLEAR and not DEBATABLE

But that is NOT what the CONSTITUTION says, is it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It certainly does not mean what SCOTUS said it means, does it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But that is NOT what the CONSTITUTION says, is it?

Its not. But then, given what it -does- say, it doesn't -need- to say that.

If anything, your proposal makes the amendment harder to interpret/apply as it gives no context in which one can define 'arms" - as currently wtitten, the defintion is fairly narrow, including all firearms, while excluding, say, nuclear weapons; if it read as you suggest, what argument is there that the people cannot own said nuclear weapons?

Its often said that the Constitution was written by people that had no idea what today would be like and what needs the people would have - and while true, it is -just- as true that the same people wrote the into the Constitution the means do deal with every single one of those needs.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

did Kevin kennedy steal his handle?

Nope, just borrowed it.

Jillian, he's not saying he's "smarter than 200 plus years of Justices." He's saying he disagrees with their interpretation of the Constitution. The question now is, do you agree with every decision the Supreme Court has ever made? If not, does that mean that you think you're smarter than the Justices who made the opinions you disagree with?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Your interpretation of the commerce clause does not mesh with your assertion that the Constitution is meant to protect individual liberties. The commerce clause has been used by both sides to justify many government excesses, from telling people they are not allowed to grow food for their personal consumption to forcing people to buy products from a politically powerful corporation. (Did you really think Congress decided to force you to buy CFL bulbs from GE because they save energy?)

You cannot have both an unlimited commerce clause and broad individual liberties.

 

[tigerbob]

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?

Exercise in futility IMO. One person's perfection is another's perdition.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

did Kevin kennedy steal his handle?

Nope, just borrowed it.

Jillian, he's not saying he's "smarter than 200 plus years of Justices." He's saying he disagrees with their interpretation of the Constitution. The question now is, do you agree with every decision the Supreme Court has ever made? If not, does that mean that you think you're smarter than the Justices who made the opinions you disagree with?

She certainly thinks she is smarter than the ones who handed down the wrong decision in Citizen's United.

 

[M14 Shooter]

did Kevin kennedy steal his handle?

Nope, just borrowed it.

Jillian, he's not saying he's "smarter than 200 plus years of Justices." He's saying he disagrees with their interpretation of the Constitution. The question now is, do you agree with every decision the Supreme Court has ever made? If not, does that mean that you think you're smarter than the Justices who made the opinions you disagree with?

She certainly thinks she is smarter than the ones who handed down the wrong decision in Citizen's United.

Or any other decision that she disagrees with - even if the justices are the same as those that hand down a decisions she -does- agree with. Her principle argument against decisions she doesn't like is the supposed moronity of the justices involved; this says pretty much all you need to know.

 

[ROBESPIERRE]

Our US Constitution is a shining example of the fruits of both the American and French Revolutions and the peacemeal transference of power from the Old Landholding Nobility of Medieval Europe over to Modern Scientific Capitalist Civilian Authority. Without it the word "Freedom" is worthless.

Nevertheless, our Constitution gets violated every day by agencies of government:

Law abiding citizens are subjected to illegal search and seizure of their property. They are denied reasonable bail. They are denied freedom of speach. They are denied their right to a speedy trial and their right not to be instumental in their own incrimination. They are denied their right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and are lied to and swindled by government agencies. Under the new Homeland Security Law, normal law abiding citizens can be arrested and held without bail for an indefinate period of time without even having charges brought against them . . . .

If Western Civilization is to endure at all, we must all take up the ongoing fight to defend our Constitution.

 

[Sheldon]

Our US Constitution is a shining example of the fruits of both the American and French Revolutions and the peacemeal transference of power from the Old Landholding Nobility of Medieval Europe over to Modern Scientific Capitalist Civilian Authority. Without it the word "Freedom" is worthless.

Nevertheless, our Constitution gets violated every day by agencies of government:

Law abiding citizens are subjected to illegal search and seizure of their property. They are denied reasonable bail. They are denied freedom of speach. They are denied their right to a speedy trial and their right not to be instumental in their own incrimination. They are denied their right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and are lied to and swindled by government agencies. Under the new Homeland Security Law, normal law abiding citizens can be arrested and held without bail for an indefinate period of time without even having charges brought against them . . . .

If Western Civilization is to endure at all, we must all take up the ongoing fight to defend our constitutional rights.

ACLU: Donate to the ACLU

btw, it's piecemeal.