More bad news for Obama liberals: Constitution is this year’s big best-seller

[rightwinger]

Weird the way wingnuts like to carry a copy of the Constitution in their pockets. Why? So they can take it out and wave it in front of their friends? Do they think that carrying around means that everyone will think that they've read it and understand it?

If you want a copy of the Constitution, for reference, you complete with notes indicating which amendments have been overwritten by other amendments, there available all over the internet. Just download it, print it if you want, and try READING IT FOR A CHANGE.

But , they would undermine the whole flag waving, phony patriotism that's the real intention of the wingnuts.

This is possibly the most ignorant post, next to the "conservatives want to secede" post, in the whole thread.

Yeah, it's DUMB to read the constitution! Those stoopid conservatives, how dare they refer to it when we shit all over it!

His post is 100% correct. Tea Baggers wave the constitution but have not read it. Few Americans have. The Constitution, other than the Bill of Rights, is mostly procedural and defines the construct of the government.

 

[AllieBaba]

The thing is, there are a lot of people trying to get educated and that's good. But the sources out there can be very good, or incredibly and horribly bad. Too many people are listening to the latter kind and nodding along blissfully.

It's one thing to espouse originalism or one of its subcategories as your preferred method of interpretation, it's a legitimate method of viewing the document and what it represents and I have no problem with that even if I tend to disagree. But the propaganda machine is going far beyond a legitimate, organic originalist meaning and into what some shysters have done with the Bible - chopping it up and accepting only those parts that can be skewed to fit their personal agenda instead of understanding the whole for what it is and forming an opinion based on reality.

I've poked fun at it, but it's sad really.

I have no idea what you're saying there. Are you saying the Constitution isn't a good source of information? Or that it's a bad idea to consider it?

 

[AllieBaba]

Weird the way wingnuts like to carry a copy of the Constitution in their pockets. Why? So they can take it out and wave it in front of their friends? Do they think that carrying around means that everyone will think that they've read it and understand it?

If you want a copy of the Constitution, for reference, you complete with notes indicating which amendments have been overwritten by other amendments, there available all over the internet. Just download it, print it if you want, and try READING IT FOR A CHANGE.

But , they would undermine the whole flag waving, phony patriotism that's the real intention of the wingnuts.

This is possibly the most ignorant post, next to the "conservatives want to secede" post, in the whole thread.

Yeah, it's DUMB to read the constitution! Those stoopid conservatives, how dare they refer to it when we shit all over it!

His post is 100% correct. Tea Baggers wave the constitution but have not read it. Few Americans have. The Constitution, other than the Bill of Rights, is mostly procedural and defines the construct of the government.

More elitist horsecrap.

 

[Cuyo]

The thing is, there are a lot of people trying to get educated and that's good. But the sources out there can be very good, or incredibly and horribly bad. Too many people are listening to the latter kind and nodding along blissfully.

It's one thing to espouse originalism or one of its subcategories as your preferred method of interpretation, it's a legitimate method of viewing the document and what it represents and I have no problem with that even if I tend to disagree. But the propaganda machine is going far beyond a legitimate, organic originalist meaning and into what some shysters have done with the Bible - chopping it up and accepting only those parts that can be skewed to fit their personal agenda instead of understanding the whole for what it is and forming an opinion based on reality.

I've poked fun at it, but it's sad really.

I have no idea what you're saying there. Are you saying the Constitution isn't a good source of information? Or that it's a bad idea to consider it?

OK let's keep it a max of 2 syllables here.

She is saying the sources of info you use to decide your stance on issues are lying to you.

 

[Cuyo]

This is possibly the most ignorant post, next to the "conservatives want to secede" post, in the whole thread.

Yeah, it's DUMB to read the constitution! Those stoopid conservatives, how dare they refer to it when we shit all over it!

His post is 100% correct. Tea Baggers wave the constitution but have not read it. Few Americans have. The Constitution, other than the Bill of Rights, is mostly procedural and defines the construct of the government.

More elitist horsecrap.

Elitist has to be my favorite buzzword of the last couple years. They finally found a way to convince the dumbfounded masses that a solid education is a bad thing, something to be abhorred. (Abhorred means that you really, really don't like it)

 

[goldcatt]

The thing is, there are a lot of people trying to get educated and that's good. But the sources out there can be very good, or incredibly and horribly bad. Too many people are listening to the latter kind and nodding along blissfully.

It's one thing to espouse originalism or one of its subcategories as your preferred method of interpretation, it's a legitimate method of viewing the document and what it represents and I have no problem with that even if I tend to disagree. But the propaganda machine is going far beyond a legitimate, organic originalist meaning and into what some shysters have done with the Bible - chopping it up and accepting only those parts that can be skewed to fit their personal agenda instead of understanding the whole for what it is and forming an opinion based on reality.

I've poked fun at it, but it's sad really.

I have no idea what you're saying there. Are you saying the Constitution isn't a good source of information? Or that it's a bad idea to consider it?

Refer back to my earlier posts, Allie. I was talking about the folks who read the Consitution (or don't and say they do) through the lens of secondary sources that tell them the "correct" way to read it or they're one of "Them".

It's fine to have an opinion about it, most folks do. But anybody who tells you there's only "One True Way" to read the Constitution or that some parts get more emphasis than others - even that some parts of it are completely meaningless - are highly suspect.

The Framers themselves were split into camps, remember. Should we listen to the Hamiltonians or the Jeffersonians? Or maybe Madison, who regretted many of the compromises that make up the document later in life as he saw the real world application. Do we read the document against the 18th Century Americanized British common law system the Framers used as their backdrop? Or can we possibly be free to draw our own conclusions based on its application to the present day, since after all that's where we live?

They're good questions, and we need all of those points of view and more if you ask me. We can't afford to stagnate, we can't afford to abandon our roots completely, we need a balance and a conversation among the different sides to keep the issues fresh. That's what the whole system is all about, after all. Balancing powers and ideas.

But that's my two cents fwiw.

 

[AllieBaba]

So you're saying we should interpret it your way?

Lol.

 

[goldcatt]

So you're saying we should interpret it your way?

Lol.

Reading comprehension ain't your strong suit, is it?

Go back and read it again, slowly, all of the words this time. Even the big ones. Let me know if you still need help, I'll be happy to oblige.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Constitution is this year?s big best-seller - TheHill.com

Liberals are SURE not going to like that. They want us to believe in the Constitution being a "living document" as Al Gore called it. What's the translation for that one?

It means the Constitution means anything liberals say it does.

They don't want people actually READING the constitution. They might notice things like there IS a 2nd Amendment in there or there are no words like "separation of church and state."

Hey! We can't have that!

What about that 10th Amendment????? People might find out Arizona is perfectly within their rights to have enforce immigration laws.

OH WE DEFINITELY CAN'T HAVE THAT!

More stuff for liberals to worry about, and more stuff for me to smile about.

Why would it be bad news for "liberals". The constitution was written by liberals. It's conservatives that want to secede. It's conservatives that want to bring down the government. Sometimes, I think they won't be satisfied until this country is a "Christian Iran".

The conservatives want to secede?



The conservatives won't secede. We'll kick the dumbass socialist liberals out on their asses and take the country back to what the founding fathers meant it to be. Small government, for the people and by the people.

The founders didn't want, or at least didn't even care, if women could vote. Do you want to bring back that Constitution? How far back do you want to take the Constitution? How many of the post Bill of Rights amendments do you want to repeal?

 

[AllieBaba]

Reading comprehension is my very strong suit. You're pissing and moaning that people are misinterpreting the consitution, based on your own belief about what the constitution is and how it should be read.

Apparently you don't really know what you're saying, so I will forgive you this time.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why would it be bad news for "liberals". The constitution was written by liberals. It's conservatives that want to secede. It's conservatives that want to bring down the government. Sometimes, I think they won't be satisfied until this country is a "Christian Iran".

The conservatives want to secede?



The conservatives won't secede. We'll kick the dumbass socialist liberals out on their asses and take the country back to what the founding fathers meant it to be. Small government, for the people and by the people.

The founders didn't want, or at least didn't even care, if women could vote. Do you want to bring back that Constitution? How far back do you want to take the Constitution? How many of the post Bill of Rights amendments do you want to repeal?

Straw man.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And *SOME OF YOU* are still stuck on STUPID to realize that those wrongs have been addressed.

But please? Continue to live in the past?

The fact that "those wrongs" were even ABLE to be addressed via the Constitution supports the fact that it is, indeed a living document.

Think McFly, think...

WRONG... And the answer IS...

"WHAT WAS THE 3/5ths of a person?" Alex for $1000.

It was a finger in the EYE to the Southern States for Slavery.

Try again asshat.

I can't believe you think that. You mean letting the Southern states get 3/5 representational credit for slaves that should have counted for ZERO was bad for the South?

Get real.

 

[goldcatt]

Reading comprehension is my very strong suit. You're pissing and moaning that people are misinterpreting the consitution, based on your own belief about what the constitution is and how it should be read.

Apparently you don't really know what you're saying, so I will forgive you this time.

Keep making yourself look like an idiot. I guess "We need all of those points of view" means exactly the opposite of what it says.

But then again, you would have had to read more than one or two words to get to that part, and sheeple hacks never read more than the one or two words that support their cause - they might see new ideas and be challenged to think for themselves.

Which illustrates my original point very well, thank you.

 

[AllieBaba]

I read your post.

Blah blah blah, more damage than good if you don't look at it the way I say, blah blah blah.

 

[Dr Gregg]

And *SOME OF YOU* are still stuck on STUPID to realize that those wrongs have been addressed.

But please? Continue to live in the past?

The fact that "those wrongs" were even ABLE to be addressed via the Constitution supports the fact that it is, indeed a living document.

Think McFly, think...

It also highlights the fact that our founding fathers were not perfect. They did the best they could in the social and political environment of the times.
As the social and political climate evolved....so did the Constitution

And making it the way they did was brilliant and allowed for the changing and evolving society. What did people learn in school? I was always taught the importance of it being a living document that can be changed with the changing times, and laws interpreted by SCOTUS to be unconstitutional or not. Or did they just get deluded by talking points into moving away from what they were actually taught.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Right, suddenly they care about he constitution, but didn't care when patriot act installed and Bush's wiretapping occurred or when US citizens suspected of terrorist activities aren't given their constitutional rights

good, maybe the republicans will learn something about how the government works.

One thing they need to learn is that the constitution is a living document, and the supreme court rules on new laws as to whether they violate the constitution or not. Instead of calling every judgement they don't agree with "judicial activism".

So many only seem to care about the constitution when it has to do with something they agree with

As I recall you are not even an American citizen. As for your bullshit claims, none of them are true. The Patriot Act is completely legal and within the frame work of the Constitution and it does not deny anyone Constitutional protections granted. The Supreme Court already threw out the part that let the Government indefinitely detain anyone arrested in the US. So even that is a lie by you. As for wire tapping, might want to talk to your buddy Obama, seems he has no problem with it either and wants to EXPAND it to everyone not just incoming calls from out of Country.

YOu apparently aren't a human being you are so stupid. I'm an american asshole, why do you morons keep saying that?

This has nothing to do with Obama dipshit and just shows you only give a shit about the constitution when its something you agree with.

You come from the class that thinks they can rewrite history and make up whatever they want to believe and call it fact. Pretty sad

 

[NYcarbineer]

The conservatives want to secede?



The conservatives won't secede. We'll kick the dumbass socialist liberals out on their asses and take the country back to what the founding fathers meant it to be. Small government, for the people and by the people.

The founders didn't want, or at least didn't even care, if women could vote. Do you want to bring back that Constitution? How far back do you want to take the Constitution? How many of the post Bill of Rights amendments do you want to repeal?

Straw man.

The founders meant the Constitution to be interpreted by the Supreme Court and amended as needed. They would laugh, imho, at anyone today who was still obsessing over keeping the country exactly the way the founders wanted it 200 odd years ago.

And while you at maybe you could tell the imperialist neocon wing of the right, which represents most of conservatism nowadays, what the founders would have thought about that, if you're going to obsess on what the founders believed.

 

[AquaAthena]

I was one of those purchasers. Also Amazon reports 17 out of 25 top book sales were on the Founding Fathers and Separation of Church and State. Glenn Beck and the Obama administration are directly responsible for the interest and for those sales. Thanks to each. We have all leaned or relearned, very much.

 

[boedicca]

The founders meant the Constitution to be interpreted by the Supreme Court and amended as needed. They would laugh, imho, at anyone today who was still obsessing over keeping the country exactly the way the founders wanted it 200 odd years ago.

And while you at maybe you could tell the imperialist neocon wing of the right, which represents most of conservatism nowadays, what the founders would have thought about that, if you're going to obsess on what the founders believed.

They certainly wouldn't laugh at a government which now incluees huge 4th Branch of a Permanent Bureaucracy that bi-passes the legislative and judicial branches and esssentially makes law via regulatory red tape.

They certainly wouldn't laugh at amendments which undermine the values upon which the Constitution was based.

The one upside of Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Company's huge overreach is that the majority of Americans have finally awakened to what Progressives are doing to this country.

Greece IS a Prequel if we don't roll back the Big Government Putsch.

 

[boedicca]

For Christmas last year, I ordered a bunch of pocket Constitutions for stocking stuffers and gifts:

Cato's Pocket Constitution

Everybody loved them!