I don't get the Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians!

[Sallow]

A "Constitutional Conservative"?

That's sort of an Oxymoron.

The Constitution is not a conservative document.

Well lets see...

• The Constitution dictates that the federal government must be small (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the federal government must be limited in it's powers (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to firearms (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to religion (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to free speech (that's conservative)

Swallow, I swear, just when I think you've peaked at the epitome of stupid, you find a way to take it to a whole new level. Do you not realize that the entire premise of "conservative" is not to change - or to change very slowly and limited (hence the Constitution is by that very definition conservative) while the entire premise of "liberal" or "progressive" is to perpetually change (hence the Constitution is by that very definition not progressive)

The constitution doesn't "dictate" anything. That's the conservative take.

What the constitution does is provide a template from which to draw the foundation of the construction of government at state and federal levels.

And it provides safeguards to the citizens of that government from overreach by the establishment of rights.

 

[NightFox]

The Constitution is not a conservative document.

Preservation of established institutions, traditions and standards, constitutional strict constructionism falls into that category thus "constitutional conservative" is not an oxymoron if one stops and thinks about what the phrase is intended to mean by those professing to follow the doctrine.

And that was never original intent.

If it were, there would be no ability to change the Constitution, and the language would be alot more exact.

The Constitution isn't dogmatic.

That is of course your opinion, one which self identified "constitutional conservatives" and strict constructionist jurists do not share, do you now see why the term "constitutional conservative" is in fact not an oxymoron?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Lone laugher wants to get the money out of politics and into her pocket IAW the obabble redistribution scheme.

Idiot. I am a 48 year old man and you would kill for my net worth.

I doubt it...........I dont think a murder conviction is worth ten bucks and some change.

 

[deltex1]

Lone laugher wants to get the money out of politics and into her pocket IAW the obabble redistribution scheme.

Idiot. I am a 48 year old man and you would kill for my net worth.

"Man" is a relative term in the libtard world isn't it? Daddy leave you some cash when he died?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Lone laugher wants to get the money out of politics and into her pocket IAW the obabble redistribution scheme.

Idiot. I am a 48 year old man and you would kill for my net worth.

"Man" is a relative term in the libtard world isn't it? Daddy leave you some cash when he died?

Derp, Derp. Feeling stupid now ain't ya? You need a loan?

 

[Sallow]

A "Constitutional Conservative"?

That's sort of an Oxymoron.

The Constitution is not a conservative document.

It is not a Liberal document...as defined by progtards.

It sure is.

Had it been a Conservative document it would have established a king and national religion.

 

[P@triot]

It is a living document in terms that it is subject to change.

Read it. The Constitution allows for it.

A "Conservative" interpretation of the Constitution is a misinterpretation of the Constitution.

Because it really is not written in stone. Nor was it ever meant to be static.

No it's not - I've already debunked this a 1,000x's.

The Constitution is absolutely, positively, unquestionably written in stone (as all laws are). Is a 25mph speed limit "open to interpretation" or must it be obeyed? Are laws against rape "open to interpretation" or must it be obeyed? Are laws against murder "open to interpretation" or must it be obeyed?

If a LAW was "living, breathing" and "open to interpretation", we would have a lawless society. And the U.S. Constitution is the highest LAW in the land (it in fact trumps any and all other laws). Since you would never declare that even a speed limit is "open to interpretation", why the fuck would you ever declare that the highest law of the land is?!?!

This just PROVES you are A.) completely disingenuous and B.) WRONG. The reason Dumbocrats want to falsely claim that the Constitution is "living, breathing" and "open to interpretation" is because in their sick thirst for dictatorial power & control, they hate the fact that they are limited by it.

This permanently puts to rest this utterly absurd libtard fallacy. Thank You

 

[eagle1462010]

Sallow is a troll.
Nothing more or nothing less. He gets his rocks off pushing his inane posts.

 

[Sallow]

Preservation of established institutions, traditions and standards, constitutional strict constructionism falls into that category thus "constitutional conservative" is not an oxymoron if one stops and thinks about what the phrase is intended to mean by those professing to follow the doctrine.

And that was never original intent.

If it were, there would be no ability to change the Constitution, and the language would be alot more exact.

The Constitution isn't dogmatic.

That is of course your opinion, one which self identified "constitutional conservatives" and strict constructionist jurists do not share, do you now see why the term "constitutional conservative" is in fact not an oxymoron?

Well no, because it is.

And even Anton Scalia, one of your Constitutional Literalists, aka "Constitutional Conservative", seems to have some interesting takes on the Constitution.

Like when he held that torture wasn't unconstitutional because torture was applied to people not charged with a crime, they are technically not subject to Constitutional Protections.

And he's in the very same camp crying about "legislating from the bench" and then turning out decisions like Citizens United, which overturned a century of legislation.

So does hypocrite also fall under the umbrella of "Constitutional Conservatives"?

 

[NightFox]

Lone laugher wants to get the money out of politics and into her pocket IAW the obabble redistribution scheme.

Idiot. I am a 48 year old man and you would kill for my net worth.

"Man" is a relative term in the libtard world isn't it? Daddy leave you some cash when he died?

Del, whenever someone starts boasting about how "rich" they are on an anonymous (and thus nearly unverifiable) medium like this one it's usually a good idea to remember:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." -- Mark Twain

The number of self proclaimed Warren Buffets on the Internet is simply amazing.

 

[P@triot]

A "Constitutional Conservative"?

That's sort of an Oxymoron.

The Constitution is not a conservative document.

Well lets see...

• The Constitution dictates that the federal government must be small (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the federal government must be limited in it's powers (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to firearms (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to religion (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to free speech (that's conservative)

Swallow, I swear, just when I think you've peaked at the epitome of stupid, you find a way to take it to a whole new level. Do you not realize that the entire premise of "conservative" is not to change - or to change very slowly and limited (hence the Constitution is by that very definition conservative) while the entire premise of "liberal" or "progressive" is to perpetually change (hence the Constitution is by that very definition not progressive)

The constitution doesn't "dictate" anything. That's the conservative take.

What the constitution does is provide a template from which to draw the foundation of the construction of government at state and federal levels.

And it provides safeguards to the citizens of that government from overreach by the establishment of rights.

A "template"?!?

Listening to your nonsensical, fairy-tale drivel is comical.

The U.S. Constitution is the LAW. It is the highest LAW of the land. It is not a "template" and it is not open to interpretation. Like all laws however, it can be altered IF the proper amendment process is followed. Not if some libtard like Obama says so (despite Dumbocrat belief in such absurdity)

 

[Sallow]

It is a living document in terms that it is subject to change.

Read it. The Constitution allows for it.

A "Conservative" interpretation of the Constitution is a misinterpretation of the Constitution.

Because it really is not written in stone. Nor was it ever meant to be static.

No it's not - I've already debunked this a 1,000x's.

The Constitution is absolutely, positively, unquestionably written in stone (as all laws are). Is a 25mph speed limit "open to interpretation" or must it be obeyed? Are laws against rape "open to interpretation" or must it be obeyed? Are laws against murder "open to interpretation" or must it be obeyed?

If a LAW was "living, breathing" and "open to interpretation", we would have a lawless society. And the U.S. Constitution is the highest LAW in the land (it in fact trumps any and all other laws). Since you would never declare that even a speed limit is "open to interpretation", why the fuck would you ever declare that the highest law of the land is?!?!

This just PROVES you are A.) completely disingenuous and B.) WRONG. The reason Dumbocrats want to falsely claim that the Constitution is "living, breathing" and "open to interpretation" is because in their sick thirst for dictatorial power & control, they hate the fact that they are limited by it.

This permanently puts to rest this utterly absurd libtard fallacy. Thank You

The Constitution is not "LAW"..it is the foundation for LAW.

You cannot be charged with violating the Constitution, as a citizen with the possible exception of Treason. Which is specifically defined.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Idiot. I am a 48 year old man and you would kill for my net worth.

"Man" is a relative term in the libtard world isn't it? Daddy leave you some cash when he died?

Del, whenever someone starts boasting about how "rich" they are on an anonymous (and thus nearly unverifiable) medium like this one it's usually a good idea to remember:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." -- Mark Twain

The number of self proclaimed Warren Buffets on the Internet is simply amazing.

It is what it is. I do well. Crazy, isn't it?

 

[Edgetho]

It is a living document in terms that it is subject to change.

Read it. The Constitution allows for it.

A "Conservative" interpretation of the Constitution is a misinterpretation of the Constitution.

Because it really is not written in stone. Nor was it ever meant to be static.

No it's not - I've already debunked this a 1,000x's.

The Constitution is absolutely, positively, unquestionably written in stone (as all laws are). Is a 25mph speed limit "open to interpretation" or must it be obeyed? Are laws against rape "open to interpretation" or must it be obeyed? Are laws against murder "open to interpretation" or must it be obeyed?

If a LAW was "living, breathing" and "open to interpretation", we would have a lawless society. And the U.S. Constitution is the highest LAW in the land (it in fact trumps any and all other laws). Since you would never declare that even a speed limit is "open to interpretation", why the fuck would you ever declare that the highest law of the land is?!?!

This just PROVES you are A.) completely disingenuous and B.) WRONG. The reason Dumbocrats want to falsely claim that the Constitution is "living, breathing" and "open to interpretation" is because in their sick thirst for dictatorial power & control, they hate the fact that they are limited by it.

This permanently puts to rest this utterly absurd libtard fallacy. Thank You

I agree with you with one caveat....

The Constitution of The United States of America is not the law....

It is ABOVE the Law. It is what Laws are derived from.

It is rock-solid, written in granite and non-negotiable except through the Amendment Process.

And dimocrap scum don't like that.

They want to be able to change the Law, disregard and violate the Constitution whenever they have the inclination to do so..

They'll wrap it in pretty foil paper, they'll lie about how it's for 'the good of the people' and put sweet-tasting candy coating over it.

But the bottom line is this.... If the Constitution is a "Living Document" then what the FUCK is the point in even having one?

There is none.

If we can change it on a whim, if dimocraps can ignore it any time they're in the mood (they do), then what's the point?

Reason #12 to despise dimocraps.

The only Law they respect is theirs.

 

[P@triot]

A "Constitutional Conservative"?

That's sort of an Oxymoron.

The Constitution is not a conservative document.

Well lets see...

• The Constitution dictates that the federal government must be small (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the federal government must be limited in it's powers (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to firearms (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to religion (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to free speech (that's conservative)

Swallow, I swear, just when I think you've peaked at the epitome of stupid, you find a way to take it to a whole new level. Do you not realize that the entire premise of "conservative" is not to change - or to change very slowly and limited (hence the Constitution is by that very definition conservative) while the entire premise of "liberal" or "progressive" is to perpetually change (hence the Constitution is by that very definition not progressive)

The constitution doesn't "dictate" anything. That's the conservative take.

What the constitution does is provide a template from which to draw the foundation of the construction of government at state and federal levels.

And it provides safeguards to the citizens of that government from overreach by the establishment of rights.

Yes it does (and you know it). It is the LAW. Hence, it DICTATES my right to keep and bear arms. It DICTATES that the federal government has limited powers. And it DICTATES that your opinions mean absolutely nothing - they are trumped by the Constitution (but hey, look on the bright side - it DICTATES that you're allowed to have AND voice your uneducated and useless opinions!)

 

[Sallow]

Well lets see...

• The Constitution dictates that the federal government must be small (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the federal government must be limited in it's powers (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to firearms (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to religion (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to free speech (that's conservative)

Swallow, I swear, just when I think you've peaked at the epitome of stupid, you find a way to take it to a whole new level. Do you not realize that the entire premise of "conservative" is not to change - or to change very slowly and limited (hence the Constitution is by that very definition conservative) while the entire premise of "liberal" or "progressive" is to perpetually change (hence the Constitution is by that very definition not progressive)

The constitution doesn't "dictate" anything. That's the conservative take.

What the constitution does is provide a template from which to draw the foundation of the construction of government at state and federal levels.

And it provides safeguards to the citizens of that government from overreach by the establishment of rights.

A "template"?!?

Listening to your nonsensical, fairy-tale drivel is comical.

The U.S. Constitution is the LAW. It is the highest LAW of the land. It is not a "template" and it is not open to interpretation. Like all laws however, it can be altered IF the proper amendment process is followed. Not if some libtard like Obama says so (despite Dumbocrat belief in such absurdity)

Of course it's open to interpretation.

And that's done all the time. Congress puts up legislation depending upon it's "interpretation" of the Constitution.

If that law is challenged, they go to courts to advocate in front of the court based on their interpretations. And the court will rule based on it's interpretation of the constitution.

You folks are really very silly about this..and put on display you really don't understand how the law and government really works.

 

[Sallow]

Well lets see...

• The Constitution dictates that the federal government must be small (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the federal government must be limited in it's powers (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to firearms (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to religion (that's conservative)
  
  
• The Constitution dictates that the people have the RIGHT to free speech (that's conservative)

Swallow, I swear, just when I think you've peaked at the epitome of stupid, you find a way to take it to a whole new level. Do you not realize that the entire premise of "conservative" is not to change - or to change very slowly and limited (hence the Constitution is by that very definition conservative) while the entire premise of "liberal" or "progressive" is to perpetually change (hence the Constitution is by that very definition not progressive)

The constitution doesn't "dictate" anything. That's the conservative take.

What the constitution does is provide a template from which to draw the foundation of the construction of government at state and federal levels.

And it provides safeguards to the citizens of that government from overreach by the establishment of rights.

Yes it does (and you know it). It is the LAW. Hence, it DICTATES my right to keep and bear arms. It DICTATES that the federal government has limited powers. And it DICTATES that your opinions mean absolutely nothing - they are trumped by the Constitution (but hey, look on the bright side - it DICTATES that you're allowed to have AND voice your uneducated and useless opinions!)

There's really no use in going on with you.

You don't understand what you are talking about.

Pick up a dictionary..and look up what the word law means.

And right means.

And read the Constitution.

You might want to take a class in civics too.

 

[P@triot]

It is a living document in terms that it is subject to change.

Read it. The Constitution allows for it.

A "Conservative" interpretation of the Constitution is a misinterpretation of the Constitution.

Because it really is not written in stone. Nor was it ever meant to be static.

No it's not - I've already debunked this a 1,000x's.

The Constitution is absolutely, positively, unquestionably written in stone (as all laws are). Is a 25mph speed limit "open to interpretation" or must it be obeyed? Are laws against rape "open to interpretation" or must it be obeyed? Are laws against murder "open to interpretation" or must it be obeyed?

If a LAW was "living, breathing" and "open to interpretation", we would have a lawless society. And the U.S. Constitution is the highest LAW in the land (it in fact trumps any and all other laws). Since you would never declare that even a speed limit is "open to interpretation", why the fuck would you ever declare that the highest law of the land is?!?!

This just PROVES you are A.) completely disingenuous and B.) WRONG. The reason Dumbocrats want to falsely claim that the Constitution is "living, breathing" and "open to interpretation" is because in their sick thirst for dictatorial power & control, they hate the fact that they are limited by it.

This permanently puts to rest this utterly absurd libtard fallacy. Thank You

The Constitution is not "LAW"..it is the foundation for LAW.

You cannot be charged with violating the Constitution, as a citizen with the possible exception of Treason. Which is specifically defined.

OMG!

He starts with "you cannot be charged with violating the Constitution" and in the same sentence gives an example that you can.

You have the right to free speech because it is the LAW. I have the right to my arsenal of firearms because it is the LAW. Tell me chief, of the U.S. Constitution is not the highest law in the land (as everyone knows it is), then what LAW authorizes you to speak, practice your religion, and possess firearms? Please tell me (I need to know). I'm waiting...

 

[whitehall]

What do you think a constitutional conservative should do when he thinks his political party has drifted away from him? Hint: there are people who are trying to make the republican party better and they carry around copies of the Constitution in their back pockets. That's right, if you aren't all bull shit or an Alinsky dirty trickster the logical move would be to remain a republican and join the Tea Party movement.

 

[NightFox]

And that was never original intent.

If it were, there would be no ability to change the Constitution, and the language would be alot more exact.

The Constitution isn't dogmatic.

That is of course your opinion, one which self identified "constitutional conservatives" and strict constructionist jurists do not share, do you now see why the term "constitutional conservative" is in fact not an oxymoron?

Well no, because it is.

Just an FYI, the act of expressing your opinion does not magically transform it into fact.

And even Anton Scalia, one of your Constitutional Literalists, aka "Constitutional Conservative", seems to have some interesting takes on the Constitution.

I claimed neither ownership of, nor adherence to strict constructionism, I simply pointed out to you that the school of thought does in fact exist since your "oxymoron" remark indicated that you were unaware it.

Like when he held that torture wasn't unconstitutional because torture was applied to people not charged with a crime, they are technically not subject to Constitutional Protections.

And he's in the very same camp crying about "legislating from the bench" and then turning out decisions like Citizens United, which overturned a century of legislation.

So does hypocrite also fall under the umbrella of "Constitutional Conservatives"?

IMHO such has not been demonstrated by anything you have said so far, all you have done is put forth an argument that Anton Scalia may be a hypocrite, which isn't the same thing.