Do you want to be a member of the Party of 'No'?

[xsited1]

I'm not talking about the GOP. I'm talking about a future party that will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Simple question: Yes or No.

 

[Samson]

.

 

[Oddball]

Absotively.

 

[WillowTree]

Call it the party of Know! and I'm in.

 

[Big Fitz]

I can't answer. Too many assumptions for the basis of the question leading potentially to a false dichotomy.

I want ALL parties back to a strict constructionist basis.

I want the act of knowingly voting for unconstitutional legislation akin to high crimes and punishable by long prison terms or capital punishment.

I want those in office actively/knowing supporting designed to undermine the constitution removed from office for violating their oath.

I don't care what party they're on. If they will being the process of rolling back the last 160 years of unconstitutional legislation, I'd be ecstatic. And if it can't be rolled back, move it to the states where it IS constitutional and let the people of that state bear the burden while those who do not, get rid of it.

We must stand up and fight this fascism that has currently seized the government by the throat and is preparing to rape and enslave the American Populace.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm not talking about the GOP. I'm talking about a future party that will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Simple question: Yes or No.

Are you saying that it is perfectly okay to purposefully write laws that are un-Constitutional? And that the people we elect have a duty to vote for those kinds of laws?

Because the only way to see this is to oppose any party that deliberately writes laws that violate the very foundation of our society just to satisfy the cowardice of a few.

 

[xotoxi]

No. I consider the Constitution to be an incomplete document...a foundation on which to build the rest of the laws.

 

[xsited1]

I'm not talking about the GOP. I'm talking about a future party that will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Simple question: Yes or No.

Are you saying that it is perfectly okay to purposefully write laws that are un-Constitutional? And that the people we elect have a duty to vote for those kinds of laws?

Because the only way to see this is to oppose any party that deliberately writes laws that violate the very foundation of our society just to satisfy the cowardice of a few.

I'm not saying anything. There are plenty of politicians who write laws that are unconstitutional and yet people keep supporting them, so I'd assume there would be a lot of people who would answer 'No'. A 'Maybe' would most likely be a 'No' unless the person has no idea how our country was founded.

It's a poll. Yes or no.

 

[amrchaos]

I want to be a member of NO Party.

 

[Samson]

unless the person has no idea how our country was founded.

It's a poll. Yes or no.

Maybe.

Now, vote "SAMSON FOR SENATE!"

 

[xsited1]

No. I consider the Constitution to be an incomplete document...a foundation on which to build the rest of the laws.

Considering the way most people vote these days, I would expect the majority would answer as you just did.

 

[Darkwind]

No. I consider the Constitution to be an incomplete document...a foundation on which to build the rest of the laws.

And that is acceptable. The ONLY way to alter the Constitution is to Amend it.

If you can make the arguments and get enough people to agree, then more power to you. Until then, Congress is required to stay with in the Constitution or they should be prosecuted for deliberately straying outside it.

 

[xsited1]

I can't answer. Too many assumptions for the basis of the question leading potentially to a false dichotomy.

I want ALL parties back to a strict constructionist basis.

I want the act of knowingly voting for unconstitutional legislation akin to high crimes and punishable by long prison terms or capital punishment.

I want those in office actively/knowing supporting designed to undermine the constitution removed from office for violating their oath.

I don't care what party they're on. If they will being the process of rolling back the last 160 years of unconstitutional legislation, I'd be ecstatic. And if it can't be rolled back, move it to the states where it IS constitutional and let the people of that state bear the burden while those who do not, get rid of it.

We must stand up and fight this fascism that has currently seized the government by the throat and is preparing to rape and enslave the American Populace.

It sounds like you want to be a member of this 'mythical' party of 'No', which makes me wonder what you mean by "Too many assumptions for the basis of the question leading potentially to a false dichotomy." I would be interested in what you meant by that.

 

[xsited1]

unless the person has no idea how our country was founded.

It's a poll. Yes or no.

Maybe.

Now, vote "SAMSON FOR SENATE!"

I'll vote 'Maybe'.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm not talking about the GOP. I'm talking about a future party that will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

Simple question: Yes or No.

Are you saying that it is perfectly okay to purposefully write laws that are un-Constitutional? And that the people we elect have a duty to vote for those kinds of laws?

Because the only way to see this is to oppose any party that deliberately writes laws that violate the very foundation of our society just to satisfy the cowardice of a few.

I'm not saying anything. There are plenty of politicians who write laws that are unconstitutional and yet people keep supporting them, so I'd assume there would be a lot of people who would answer 'No'. A 'Maybe' would most likely be a 'No' unless the person has no idea how our country was founded.

It's a poll. Yes or no.

There are people who support such politicians because they think they are getting something out of it. And that is directly traced back to the agenda that is being taught in our schools.

If people are taught the proper role of government and are given the true purpose of the Constitution from the earliest age, they would know better then to support politicians who vote outside their authority.

And until we start calling them on it, it will continue to get worse.

People have to be taught yet again that they do not have a right to vote themselves wealth from the common treasury.

 

[amrchaos]

No. I consider the Constitution to be an incomplete document...a foundation on which to build the rest of the laws.

And that is acceptable. The ONLY way to alter the Constitution is to Amend it.

If you can make the arguments and get enough people to agree, then more power to you. Until then, Congress is required to stay with in the Constitution or they should be prosecuted for deliberately straying outside it.

Congress staying within Constitutional bounds is like Congress staying within a budget

Suppose to happen, rarely does.

 

[xotoxi]

No. I consider the Constitution to be an incomplete document...a foundation on which to build the rest of the laws.

And that is acceptable. The ONLY way to alter the Constitution is to Amend it.

If you can make the arguments and get enough people to agree, then more power to you. Until then, Congress is required to stay with in the Constitution or they should be prosecuted for deliberately straying outside it.

I'm not saying that the Constitution needs to be amended. Laws that are created by legislation do not alter the Constitution.

 

[xsited1]

No. I consider the Constitution to be an incomplete document...a foundation on which to build the rest of the laws.

And that is acceptable. The ONLY way to alter the Constitution is to Amend it.

If you can make the arguments and get enough people to agree, then more power to you. Until then, Congress is required to stay with in the Constitution or they should be prosecuted for deliberately straying outside it.

Congress staying within Constitutional bounds is like Congress staying within a budget

Suppose to happen, rarely does.

Hmmmm. That almost sounds criminal. If politicians were thrown in jail for straying from 'constitutional bounds' or spending 'outside of the budget', it probably wouldn't happen.

 

[Darkwind]

No. I consider the Constitution to be an incomplete document...a foundation on which to build the rest of the laws.

And that is acceptable. The ONLY way to alter the Constitution is to Amend it.

If you can make the arguments and get enough people to agree, then more power to you. Until then, Congress is required to stay with in the Constitution or they should be prosecuted for deliberately straying outside it.

I'm not saying that the Constitution needs to be amended. Laws that are created by legislation do not alter the Constitution.

However, there ARE laws that are written that are outside the powers of the Congress and these are un-Constitutional. They do not need to alter the Constitution to be un-Constitutional.

If the Congress wishes to have the powers to write such laws, they need to get the people to agree to that power through an Amendment.

 

[Darkwind]

And that is acceptable. The ONLY way to alter the Constitution is to Amend it.

If you can make the arguments and get enough people to agree, then more power to you. Until then, Congress is required to stay with in the Constitution or they should be prosecuted for deliberately straying outside it.

Congress staying within Constitutional bounds is like Congress staying within a budget

Suppose to happen, rarely does.

Hmmmm. That almost sounds criminal. If politicians were thrown in jail for straying from 'constitutional bounds' or spending 'outside of the budget', it probably wouldn't happen.

I agree. It should be criminal.