Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Most liberals have accepted some ‘modern’ or populist view of the correct direction of society, without addressing either the provenance, or the prognosis if this path is followed.
1. Where do our laws begin? The answer is not open to conjecture: it is written in the Constitution itself.
“THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI.
2. Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, “In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: ‘I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly EVOLVING EXPERIENCE of the American people.’ …
“Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHIES OF OUR TIME. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the CONSTITUTION AS A DOCUMENT THAT CONFORMS PEOPLE TO UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES that promote their own and the general welfare.
3. Liberal scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTH”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work. “A well-known Harvard law professor,” Robert Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”
4. Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers. RADICAL LIBERAL CULTURE OFTEN HAS CONTEMPT OF HISTORY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The War Against the U.S. Constitution | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
5. Speaking directly to this point, the Tea Party folks have created a ‘Contract For America,’ the first item of which is the following, agreed to by over 82%:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent). Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News
Your post was merely silly, PC. You truly need to think before you write. Right now, you are merely for chuckles and grins.
Most liberals have accepted some modern or populist view of the correct direction of society, without addressing either the provenance, or the prognosis if this path is followed.
1. Where do our laws begin? The answer is not open to conjecture: it is written in the Constitution itself.
THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Article VI.
2. Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly EVOLVING EXPERIENCE of the American people.
Mr. Gores view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHIES OF OUR TIME. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the CONSTITUTION AS A DOCUMENT THAT CONFORMS PEOPLE TO UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES that promote their own and the general welfare.
3. Liberal scholars today dont believe the Constitution was ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTHthat is, they dont believe our founders established the rule of law. But thats just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work. A well-known Harvard law professor, Robert Bork wrote, turned to me with some exasperation and said, Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.
4. Law schools routinely teach about being legal realists. Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an evolving Constitution. But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers. RADICAL LIBERAL CULTURE OFTEN HAS CONTEMPT OF HISTORY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The War Against the U.S. Constitution | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
5. Speaking directly to this point, the Tea Party folks have created a Contract For America, the first item of which is the following, agreed to by over 82%:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent). Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News
Considering the Founders themselves did not agree on what the Constitution meant, its abundantly clear that either a) they intended (some of) it to be left open to interpretation or b) they were bumbling idiots.
I'm going with a) as the more realistic probability.
Most liberals have accepted some ‘modern’ or populist view of the correct direction of society, without addressing either the provenance, or the prognosis if this path is followed.
1. Where do our laws begin? The answer is not open to conjecture: it is written in the Constitution itself.
“THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI.
2. Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, “In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: ‘I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly EVOLVING EXPERIENCE of the American people.’ …
“Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHIES OF OUR TIME. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the CONSTITUTION AS A DOCUMENT THAT CONFORMS PEOPLE TO UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES that promote their own and the general welfare.
3. Liberal scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTH”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work. “A well-known Harvard law professor,” Robert Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”
4. Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers. RADICAL LIBERAL CULTURE OFTEN HAS CONTEMPT OF HISTORY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The War Against the U.S. Constitution | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God
5. Speaking directly to this point, the Tea Party folks have created a ‘Contract For America,’ the first item of which is the following, agreed to by over 82%:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent). Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News
Considering the Founders themselves did not agree on what the Constitution meant, its abundantly clear that either a) they intended (some of) it to be left open to interpretation or b) they were bumbling idiots.
I'm going with a) as the more realistic probability.
Got any meat, or just filler?
Conservatives: Judge all by what they do, not who they are.
Just two comments on your post.
As to #5, yes, Locke said "Life, Liberty, and Property." Why did the Founders alter the phrase to replace property with the pursuit of happiness? Because of the invidious topic: slavery. They knew that the problem would have to be settled at some future date, and didn't want the term property to allow slave holders to claim the Constitution validated it.]
In #7, here I disagree. A major difference between the two view is over the nature of man. Checks and balances were meant to restrain the evil in man, as in "If men were Angels, no government would be necessary." Note Federalist #10.
Progressives believe that man's nature is plastic, and can be changed by the correct governmental policies.
Methinks you protest too much.
You use words incorrectly, and this also represents your ability with ideas. Clearly, you were unaware of the meaning of poignantly, as it was not the only work you misused. And now you choose to cover embarrassment with a lie? How liberal of you.
You write poorly, and it reflects in your thinking as well.
"...you've criticized the court's findings..." This stretch is a transparent attempt to make it seem that your point, such as it is, has some import. It does not. Nor does it restore any semblance of honesty to your post.
The checks and balances are embedded throughout the Constitution.
Before you next post, you should consider asking yourself” Do I really want the word ‘moron’ in my obituary?”
yeah. clearly i don't know what poignant means, or write worth a shit.
lets set some definitions for the argument then:
are you saying that you don't contest the decisions which upheld progressive legislation?
my comprehension is a bit shot, too.
I find you dishonest.
Be gone.
Just two comments on your post.
As to #5, yes, Locke said "Life, Liberty, and Property." Why did the Founders alter the phrase to replace property with the pursuit of happiness? Because of the invidious topic: slavery. They knew that the problem would have to be settled at some future date, and didn't want the term property to allow slave holders to claim the Constitution validated it.]
Right on. It is always interesting and sometimes constructive to see that the excuse some Liberals/Progressives use for their contempt and even dismissal of the Constitution as important is that it did not abolish slavery from the get go. But none of them have studied the debates and thoughts and counsel of the Founders. Thus they can't understand how astute and brilliant those men were to hammer out whatever compromises were necessary in order to form a strong union even as they conceived a document that put us on the path of where we ultimately needed to be.
Just two comments on your post.
As to #5, yes, Locke said "Life, Liberty, and Property." Why did the Founders alter the phrase to replace property with the pursuit of happiness? Because of the invidious topic: slavery. They knew that the problem would have to be settled at some future date, and didn't want the term property to allow slave holders to claim the Constitution validated it.]
Right on. It is always interesting and sometimes constructive to see that the excuse some Liberals/Progressives use for their contempt and even dismissal of the Constitution as important is that it did not abolish slavery from the get go. But none of them have studied the debates and thoughts and counsel of the Founders. Thus they can't understand how astute and brilliant those men were to hammer out whatever compromises were necessary in order to form a strong union even as they conceived a document that put us on the path of where we ultimately needed to be.
Just remember who the elitist is.
And after that, please explain why the framers of the Constitution disagreed over what it meant.
Right on. It is always interesting and sometimes constructive to see that the excuse some Liberals/Progressives use for their contempt and even dismissal of the Constitution as important is that it did not abolish slavery from the get go. But none of them have studied the debates and thoughts and counsel of the Founders. Thus they can't understand how astute and brilliant those men were to hammer out whatever compromises were necessary in order to form a strong union even as they conceived a document that put us on the path of where we ultimately needed to be.
Just remember who the elitist is.
And after that, please explain why the framers of the Constitution disagreed over what it meant.
Elitists are those who consider themselves to be superior to others--morally, intellectually, philosophically, politically, socially.
The "some"--that's some and not all Progressives demonstrate that they have not studied the debates, thoughts, counsel of the Founders when they dramatically misrepresent them. They pick up erroneous concepts or flat out lies off other websites and repost them without bothering to check for accuracy.
That is not elitism. Nor is that condemnation. It is simply an observation. Not one of us has not misquoted somebody or something or gotten facts wrong at some point or another. Such points to human fallability, not to any kind of inate evil. It happens. And sometimes we just see things differently and don't agree. I run into that with my more conservative friends all the time as none of us agree on every single point of every issue.
Nor did the Founders. They were fallible human beings too and none claimed to be saints. And, as all people do, they debated and deliberated and argued and wrote and rewrote and revised and amended again and again those concepts that eventually made their way into the Constitution. And sometimes it required compromise to reach agreement on a phrase or clause that all could agree to support.
But because they were of one mind wanting to get it right--to produce a document that would do the job--they came up with the most brilliant concept of government the world has ever known. And it worked pretty much as they thought it should, and it has stood the test of time.
Just remember who the elitist is.
And after that, please explain why the framers of the Constitution disagreed over what it meant.
Elitists are those who consider themselves to be superior to others--morally, intellectually, philosophically, politically, socially.
The "some"--that's some and not all Progressives demonstrate that they have not studied the debates, thoughts, counsel of the Founders when they dramatically misrepresent them. They pick up erroneous concepts or flat out lies off other websites and repost them without bothering to check for accuracy.
That is not elitism. Nor is that condemnation. It is simply an observation. Not one of us has not misquoted somebody or something or gotten facts wrong at some point or another. Such points to human fallability, not to any kind of inate evil. It happens. And sometimes we just see things differently and don't agree. I run into that with my more conservative friends all the time as none of us agree on every single point of every issue.
Nor did the Founders. They were fallible human beings too and none claimed to be saints. And, as all people do, they debated and deliberated and argued and wrote and rewrote and revised and amended again and again those concepts that eventually made their way into the Constitution. And sometimes it required compromise to reach agreement on a phrase or clause that all could agree to support.
But because they were of one mind wanting to get it right--to produce a document that would do the job--they came up with the most brilliant concept of government the world has ever known. And it worked pretty much as they thought it should, and it has stood the test of time.
please explain why the framers of the Constitution disagreed over what it meant.
I'll rephrase:
How can there only be one correct interpretation of the Constitution when the Framers themselves did not agree?
I'll rephrase:
How can there only be one correct interpretation of the Constitution when the Framers themselves did not agree?
Considering the Founders themselves did not agree on what the Constitution meant, its abundantly clear that either a) they intended (some of) it to be left open to interpretation or b) they were bumbling idiots.
I'm going with a) as the more realistic probability.
Got any meat, or just filler?
Sure PoliticalChic, in fact, I'll point out something relevant to the present HC debate. Madison and Hamilton disagreed over how Article I Section 8 Clause 1 should be interpreted. Madison believed it did not actually grant any powers to Congress - Hamilton believed it did. Both being Framers of the Constitution - both of their opinions are on equal standing. But we can't have BOTH interpretations in force, one must be selected. The courts selected Hamilton's interpretation in U.S. v. Butler.
The mere fact that two people who framed the Constitution disagree over how to interpret it should tell you that "strict constructionism" is a joke. You can't strictly construe something that was designed to be vague.
Just two comments on your post.
As to #5, yes, Locke said "Life, Liberty, and Property." Why did the Founders alter the phrase to replace property with the pursuit of happiness? Because of the invidious topic: slavery. They knew that the problem would have to be settled at some future date, and didn't want the term property to allow slave holders to claim the Constitution validated it.]
Right on. It is always interesting and sometimes constructive to see that the excuse some Liberals/Progressives use for their contempt and even dismissal of the Constitution as important is that it did not abolish slavery from the get go. But none of them have studied the debates and thoughts and counsel of the Founders. Thus they can't understand how astute and brilliant those men were to hammer out whatever compromises were necessary in order to form a strong union even as they conceived a document that put us on the path of where we ultimately needed to be.
But then Conservatives can apprecaite that. Apparently most Progressives can't.
In #7, here I disagree. A major difference between the two view is over the nature of man. Checks and balances were meant to restrain the evil in man, as in "If men were Angels, no government would be necessary." Note Federalist #10.
Progressives believe that man's nature is plastic, and can be changed by the correct governmental policies.
We probably don't really disagree. I guess I was defending my liberal brethren in their ability to distinguish between good and evil. But I didn't go far enough in my summary assessment to include the necessity of being a people of laws in order to secure our rights. Under anarchy, even with mostly angels present, there are no rights.
But as I previously stated, Conservatives want government to secure their rights and then leave it up to the people to otherwise establish whatever society they wish to have. Conservatives don't see it as the government's prerogative to determine that, and the Constitution is correctly interpreted when it is seen as affirming that principle.
You are right Liberals see the government as a necessary authority to order the people to live as they should and shape them into who they should be.
I'll rephrase:
How can there only be one correct interpretation of the Constitution when the Framers themselves did not agree?
Right on. It is always interesting and sometimes constructive to see that the excuse some Liberals/Progressives use for their contempt and even dismissal of the Constitution as important is that it did not abolish slavery from the get go. But none of them have studied the debates and thoughts and counsel of the Founders. Thus they can't understand how astute and brilliant those men were to hammer out whatever compromises were necessary in order to form a strong union even as they conceived a document that put us on the path of where we ultimately needed to be.
Just remember who the elitist is.
And after that, please explain why the framers of the Constitution disagreed over what it meant.
Elitists are those who consider themselves to be superior to others--morally, intellectually, philosophically, politically, socially.
The "some"--that's some and not all Progressives demonstrate that they have not studied the debates, thoughts, counsel of the Founders when they dramatically misrepresent them. They pick up erroneous concepts or flat out lies off other websites and repost them without bothering to check for accuracy.
That is not elitism. Nor is that condemnation. It is simply an observation. Not one of us has not misquoted somebody or something or gotten facts wrong at some point or another. Such points to human fallability, not to any kind of inate evil. It happens. And sometimes we just see things differently and don't agree. I run into that with my more conservative friends all the time as none of us agree on every single point of every issue.
Nor did the Founders. They were fallible human beings too and none claimed to be saints. And, as all people do, they debated and deliberated and argued and wrote and rewrote and revised and amended again and again those concepts that eventually made their way into the Constitution. And sometimes it required compromise to reach agreement on a phrase or clause that all could agree to support.
But because they were of one mind wanting to get it right--to produce a document that would do the job--they came up with the most brilliant concept of government the world has ever known. And it worked pretty much as they thought it should, and it has stood the test of time.
