Happy Constitution Day!!!!!

[Modbert]

Did I fucking say you worshiped him moron?
In your reply you said you agreed with George Carlin that we have no right's but temporary privileges

I then stated
"I would whether agree with the framers of the Constitution than agree with a dead uneducated kicked out of the military comedian. So if george carlin said you had to live on beard and water because you do not have any right to anything else would you agree with that also?"

Deflection will get you no where moonbat

I agreed with Carlin, yes. However, you seemed to think that agree = religious fervor. You treated my simply agreeing with George Carlin as some religious worship of the man. If he said something I disagreed with, I'd disagree with him. Why don't you go ahead and tell those Japanese American citizens who were thrown into Internment Camps during World War II all about their so called rights.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I wonder what our founders would have said about Bush calling those bonds, held by our Social Security Trust, pieces of worthless paper.

The Founders would not have accepted the Social Security Administration, dickless.

To everyone else:

Happy Constitution Day.

What an ignorant asshat you are. Of course they would have, had they lived in the industrial and post industrial age. Was not a freebie hospital law, signed by George Washington, and authorized by congress passed? Was not the basis of our fifth Uniform Service, the PHS? Man, you are one ignorant pissant.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did I fucking say you worshiped him moron?
In your reply you said you agreed with George Carlin that we have no right's but temporary privileges

I then stated
"I would whether agree with the framers of the Constitution than agree with a dead uneducated kicked out of the military comedian. So if george carlin said you had to live on beard and water because you do not have any right to anything else would you agree with that also?"

Deflection will get you no where moonbat

I agreed with Carlin, yes. However, you seemed to think that agree = religious fervor. You treated my simply agreeing with George Carlin as some religious worship of the man. If he said something I disagreed with, I'd disagree with him. Why don't you go ahead and tell those Japanese American citizens who were thrown into Internment Camps during World War II all about their so called rights.

No moonbat you are the one talking about religion you are the one that equated what I said to mean worship. So you musty in fact worship carlin.

Because the words to agree does not mean to worship at least in my world.

Careful about Rosevelts consentration camps

 

[The T]

Times change but that doesn't mean we should give up our freedoms or those things guaranteed by our Constitution.

Happy Constitution Day Folks.

Indeed. Just because Society changes? Principles should remain constant. Liberty is an all or nothing proposition tempered with Law and Order.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well you see Modbert, I don't base my values and principles on the character or behavior of people, and I can can argue a value or principle without having to trash somebody. And I consider a correct statement or good idea to be a correct statement or a good idea no matter who puts it out there.

I suspect if you tried doing that just once in your life, you might find yourself thinking differently about some things and your views about what is realistic to not quite be what they are now.

So how did you answer the poll re the Constitution?

Hypocrisy, thy name be Foxfyre. I'm sure you won't apologize for your attempt to trash me either while railing against my supposedly trashing others. I didn't know my simply repeating historical fact is trashing somebody.

I answered other. I'm not basing my values or principles on people either. I'm simply telling you reality, your choice to listen or not. At the end of the day, I doubt you'll really listen because you have your own reality that you're nice and comfortable in. It's understandable that you would not want to go beyond that.

Whoa, I must have really hit a nerve with this one. I have not trashed you dear Modbert nor have I attempted to do so. I made an argument against the argument you made that I disagree with. I commented on your consistent propensity to attack the messenger rather than the message and I suggested you would most likely argue differently if you would try not doing that. If I have misjudged you about that, I will apologize, but so far in this thread you have not given me any justification for doing so.

So what is wrong with what Reagan said re the Constitution? Can you ignore your contempt for him (or me) long enough to focus on that?

 

[JWBooth]

I'm more of an anti-federalist/articles of confederation man myself.

 

[daveman]

"Mr. President, how do you feel about the Constitution?"

"Needs a little work."

 

[Big Black Dog]

A lot being said about it being Constitution Day. I wish more could be said about our President actually abiding by what the Constitution said instead of trying to do end runs around it to fulfill his socialist desires.

 

[Modbert]

Whoa, I must have really hit a nerve with this one. I have not trashed you dear Modbert nor have I attempted to do so. I made an argument against the argument you made that I disagree with. I commented on your consistent propensity to attack the messenger rather than the message and I suggested you would most likely argue differently if you would try not doing that. If I have misjudged you about that, I will apologize, but so far in this thread you have not given me any justification for doing so.

So what is wrong with what Reagan said re the Constitution? Can you ignore your contempt for him (or me) long enough to focus on that?

You didn't hit a nerve, however for you to respond the way you did, I must of hit some sort of nerve with you for merely offering my opinion.

You just did it again, as I bolded. You're simply doing your best to defend Reagan as much as possible. While what Reagan says is nice, much of it simply doesn't hold up in the face of facts. Then again, if I started quoting Obama about fiscal responsibility, you'd probably rail off all about how he isn't. So again, don't give me that bullshit.

I will agree with him partly however about something. We as a country have sat by as we allow the government to take away our civil liberties and rights one by one in the name of security and morality. Many of these "Constitution Patriots" who rail on for hours about the Constitution are nowhere to be found when it comes to the War on Drugs, when it comes to not having the government go after people for simply being Homosexual, etc. You know why? Because in many cases, they're the same people who are railing FOR the War on Drugs and railing FOR the outlaw once again of Homosexuality.

I made a argument without attacking any sort of messenger, YOU ignored it and quoted Reagan without even bothering to really look at what I said. As for you, I have no contempt for you nor do I have contempt for Reagan. I'm simply stating the facts as they are.

So let me ask you, did you go ahead and look up the Alien & Sedition Act yet?

 

[Jeremy]

Holy shit! Can't even have a Happy Constitution Day thread without anger and bitterness. WTF?

 

[boedicca]

Other: The Constitution codifies a system of government based upon a philosophical system in which Individual Liberty is the prime value. The Constitution should be interpreted and laws designed based upon this philosophy.

 

[jillian]

Other: The Constitution codifies a system of government based upon a philosophical system in which Individual Liberty is the prime value. The Constitution should be interpreted and laws designed based upon this philosophy.

That's actually pretty good. So how do you justify support for governmental interference in personal things like reproductive choice and gay marriage?

By your definition, the most liberal possible reading of the constitution would be the most appropriate since it would offer greatest protection for minority and individual rights.

 

[The T]

Other: The Constitution codifies a system of government based upon a philosophical system in which Individual Liberty is the prime value. The Constitution should be interpreted and laws designed based upon this philosophy.

Liberty interspersed with responsibility. And Government's main objective was to protect that Liberty.

Simple concept. But my how we have complicated our lives...

 

[boedicca]

Other: The Constitution codifies a system of government based upon a philosophical system in which Individual Liberty is the prime value. The Constitution should be interpreted and laws designed based upon this philosophy.

That's actually pretty good. So how do you justify support for governmental interference in personal things like reproductive choice and gay marriage?

By your definition, the most liberal possible reading of the constitution would be the most appropriate since it would offer greatest protection for minority and individual rights.

I don't. You won't find any posts by me that advocate for government control of our bodies and relationships.

Your are incorrect in assessing that a liberal reading of the constitution would provide the greatest protection of minority and individual rights in the present day use of the word liberal. Constitutional rights are negative rights: the rights to be left alone to pursue one's own path in life as long as one respects the boundaries that protect others' rights to pursue their own paths.

The modern liberal distorts this into an assertion of Positive Rights: the right to housing, the right to education, the right to health care. The problem with these is that they require somebody else's liberty to be infringed (ultimately at the point of a government gun), to provide or finance those positive rights.

 

[boedicca]

Other: The Constitution codifies a system of government based upon a philosophical system in which Individual Liberty is the prime value. The Constitution should be interpreted and laws designed based upon this philosophy.

Liberty interspersed with responsibility. And Government's main objective was to protect that Liberty.

Simple concept. But my how we have complicated our lives...

Responsibility is a necessary attitude under the True Liberty umbrella.

Their is no Liberty if one abdicates responsibility for one's actions and condition in life.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your poll answers do not cover it all.

You seem to think that it is either we never change it or it is open to being changed by mere interpretation alone.
The truth is we have a mechanism to change it, called the Amendment process. Which should allow it to change as society does. What people like me object to, is it's meaning and power being changed by liberal interpretation of it's words and not by the Amendment process.

An excellent point. A point I think you might be overlooking, however, is that the Founders anticipated that circumstances would necessitate amendment to the Constitution. And it was THEY who wrote in the process for doing that.

So put your two thoughts together here:
"You (meaning me) seem to think that it is either we never change it or it is open to being changed by mere interpretation alone". . . . . and then later in your argument. . . .(I--meaning you) object to. . .its meaning and power being changed by liberal interpretation of its words and not by the Amendment process."

So, in lieu of formal amendment, I am absolutely a Constitutional originalist. Some amendments I think have been necessary such as the abolition of slavery. (I suspect that was first and foremost in the mind of the anti-slavery founders who helped forge the Constitution in the first place.) An amendment such as prohibition absolutely violated the spirit and intent of the document the Founders intended and another amendment was necessary to rescind it. Eventually we may need a balanced budget amendment to rein in legislators with an insatiable appetite for spending, but that will require an intense national debate as to what can and what cannot be included in that budget.

In short, I suspect you are making a masterful argument here, but you're preaching to the choir.

 

[The T]

Other: The Constitution codifies a system of government based upon a philosophical system in which Individual Liberty is the prime value. The Constitution should be interpreted and laws designed based upon this philosophy.

Liberty interspersed with responsibility. And Government's main objective was to protect that Liberty.

Simple concept. But my how we have complicated our lives...

Responsibility is a necessary attitude under the True Liberty umbrella.

Their is no Liberty if one abdicates responsibility for one's actions and condition in life.

Indeed. Liberty ceases when it crosses that of another.

 

[Modbert]

So, in lieu of formal amendment, I am absolutely a Constitutional originalist. Some amendments I think have been necessary such as the abolition of slavery.

I'm going to stop the quoting of this post here because I am honestly wondering how these two statements can co-exist.

The Thirteenth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment (prohibits states from using race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting), Nineteenth Amendment (giving all women the right to vote), and Twenty-Six Amendments are all things I'm sure most if not all people can agree were more than necessary.

If one is a Constitutional originalist, the only people who have any real rights in this country are white land-owning males.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, in lieu of formal amendment, I am absolutely a Constitutional originalist. Some amendments I think have been necessary such as the abolition of slavery.

I'm going to stop the quoting of this post here because I am honestly wondering how these two statements can co-exist.

The Thirteenth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment (prohibits states from using race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting), Nineteenth Amendment (giving all women the right to vote), and Twenty-Six Amendments are all things I'm sure most if not all people can agree were more than necessary.

If one is a Constitutional originalist, the only people who have any real rights in this country are white land-owning males.

What amendments that have been created throughout the years has been for the better, tell me moonbat How many changes to the Constitution took away anyones right?

 

[The T]

So, in lieu of formal amendment, I am absolutely a Constitutional originalist. Some amendments I think have been necessary such as the abolition of slavery.

I'm going to stop the quoting of this post here because I am honestly wondering how these two statements can co-exist.

The Thirteenth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment (prohibits states from using race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting), Nineteenth Amendment (giving all women the right to vote), and Twenty-Six Amendments are all things I'm sure most if not all people can agree were more than necessary.

If one is a Constitutional originalist, the only people who have any real rights in this country are white land-owning males.

Foxfyre is correct. For the Amendment process works for the most part and they left that power to the exercise of the Congress to use sparingly as warranted but also a difficult process because of the numbers of States needed for ratification. So the word 'originalist' is quite appropo. It works.