Reading The Constitution

[PoliticalChic]

1.This may come as a shock to government school grads, but the United States Constitution is written in English.



Now, according to Progressives, this is a draw-back, as they would like the Supreme Court Justices that they manage to infect the Court with, to be imagined as the Wizard of Oz, hidden behind the curtain, and only they have the power to discern what the Constitution says…and means. That’s why they inject the loaded term ‘interpret.’

But, I imagine, government school grads regularly used the idea that their own textbooks needed ‘interpretation.’




2. Progressive writer Thom Hartmann advances that concept....here: “… textualist justices pretend to divine the meaning of words in the Constitution by reading dictionaries from the 1700s. As Scalia told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “Originalism is sort of a subspecies of textualism. Textualism means you are governed by the text. That’s the only thing that is relevant to your decision, not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that.” But there’s no single meaning to terms that appear in the Constitution…” “The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,”p.36-37. Thom Hartmann

Get that? The words don’t mean anything until Progressives make up their meaning.
For Progressives, they need to juggle, twist, and manipulate the Constitution until they get the outcome they wish.


That’s how Liberals find special ‘rights’ in penumbras and shadows.




3. Justice Scalia explained it this way:

“Chris WALLACE: You -- in your book, you explain your approach to judging, which is called textualism or originalism. What exactly is that?

SCALIA: Originalism is sort of subspecies of textualism. Textualism means you are governed by the text. That's the only thing that is relevant to your decision, not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that. But the text of the statute.

Originalism says that when you consult the text, you give it the meaning it had when it was adopted, not some later modern meaning. So --


WALLACE: So, if it was the Constitution written in the 18th century, you try to find what those words meant in the 18th century.



SCALIA: Exactly, the best example being the death penalty. I've sat with three colleagues who thought it was unconstitutional, but it's absolutely clear that the American people never voted to proscribe the death penalty. They adopted a cruel and unusual punishment clause at the time when every state had the death penalty and every state continued to have it. Nobody thought that the Eighth Amendment prohibited it.” Interview with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia | RealClearPolitics




4. Having been written two and have centuries ago is not a problem.
For Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, reliance on the written text of the Constitution, explains how the Constitution is to be used.


Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as for suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”


And no decisions not tied directly to the Constitution!


Today, the the Supreme Court feels it can provide the answer to every issue.
It was not meant to be this way.
Today, there are no issues that judges admit to being ‘above their pay grade.’

They simply use their own biases and views as though they were issued by the ratifiers of the Constitution.





But, of course, that’s not the aim of Liberals who manage to get on the Court: they aim to simply substitute their views for the Founders’ views.

 

[Gdjjr]

But, of course, that’s not the aim of Liberals who manage to get on the Court: they aim to simply substitute their views for the Founders’ views.

Good thoughts- however, I'd say the quoted applies equally to conservatives as well. Most empty suits are lawyers or have lawyers on their staff- lawyers pay others to teach them to lie legally- intentional misinterpretation is the result. It was, after all, the compassionate conservative who infected us with the ability of the fed godvernment to ignore the 4th amendment- yes liberals went along with it, but, that makes them only guilty as the compassionate conservative-

You have some really good points to make, but, siding with one or another doesn't make your point as well as it could be made.
The problem you're addressing here is systemic, not partisan.
Anecdotally: there is no enumerated power for the gov't infection of mandated education. That mandated education brainwashes by omission and conservatives only wish to tweak it- not abolish it. Same can be said for the 14th amendment, which can be argued was illegally ratified- as was the fed reserve act and income tax act- yet, all conservatives want to do is tweak it for their benefit for election or reelection purposes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. “Originalists prefer to dive deep into arcane books to support their theories. Sometimes they find support for their ideas in texts that were almost certainly un- known to any of the framers of the Constitution.” Hartmann



If an individual who intended to fulfill his obligation as a Supreme Court Justice wanted to understand how the Founders would have ruled, there is a mechanism.

“As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’


For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’”
“Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” by Steven G. Calabresi (Editor), Antonin Scalia (Foreword)



It's not that it is too much trouble for Liberals......it defeats their purpose.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. The Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. That is THE Constitution….not one bent to the whims and wishes of whoever manages to get on the Court.



“The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.” Professor Randy Barnett, in “Originalism,” p. 262.



There is no liberal or conservative meaning of the text of the Constitution, only a right meaning or a wrong meaning. Those who convert the Constitution into a license for judges to make policy instead of being a limit on the power of judges, pervert a document that is supposed to limit power into one that sanctions it.



Thomas Paine said, “America has no monarch: Here the law is king.”
Originalists believe that the written Constitution is our most fundamental law and that it binds us all. Justices who abandon the original meaning of the text of the Constitution invariably end up substituting their own political philosophies for those of the framers.
Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Remember this Obama lie?

At a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."

“Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.”
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer



His bogus ‘constitutional professorship’ might be Obama’s excuse for not understanding the Constitution. He said this:

“…the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says o the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”
Obama rips U.S. Constitution - WND




The Left/Liberals/Progressives aim to do what Obama had in mind: remove any restrictions to their plans.


And the simplest way?

They “Read-into” the Constitution any way they choose.

 

[Gdjjr]

Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.

American education doesn't teach them that. There have been sound bites referring to the Rule of Law but I seriously doubt that many Americans even know what that phrase means.

Then you have this too, which I seriously doubt is ever discussed in any school.

The question you propose, whether circumstances do not sometimes occur, which make it a duty in officers of high trust, to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”

September 20, 1810 – Thomas Jefferson Opines the Rule of Law is not the “Highest” Duty
Posted on September 20, 2014 by rhapsodyinbooks
On this date, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to John B. Colvin, in which he opined:




I suspect judges, who were lawyers, unconsciously reference that- unconsciously being the key. Lawyers are noted for stretching things out of proportion, and, Porter Rockwell, claiming to have been before the Bar for its examination to pass it, claims it is the most left wing organization in the country.
But, again, I point out it is systemic, not partisan.
And you, of all people, having read (and claimed to have posted this) should know better than to make it partisan. It isn't.
(Refer to my first sentence)

Americans first have to be properly educated. Then and only then will the systemic violations of the oath of office have a fighting chance. Corruption and intentional misinterpretation is a bi partisan affront to the Rule of Law. It is exacerbated in the mandated education which is trusted by the unknowing and worshiped by the ignorant simple because it is what is ingrained from the moment we gain an ounce of cognizance.

We operate under the edict of man- (see the current POTUS for affirmation and his predecessors)

Per the constitution

Power of POTUS

The constitution, being the Supreme Law, was passed (agreed to by signatures) to help ensure (insure before there was a different spelling/meaning) that the fed gov't didn't become oppressive or tyrannical - with so many federal laws on the books they can't even be counted, I don't see how it's not a bi partisan effort intended to restrict vs protect Liberty- the founders had an idea that citizens had the right to decide for themselves how to be governed and set up a system, which at the time, seemed to be logical to them as a system which could re-enforce/validate that- seeming logical to the founders is not what we use as the metric of logic today- that lays solely at the feet of improper education which is a bipartisan effort.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.

American education doesn't teach them that. There have been sound bites referring to the Rule of Law but I seriously doubt that many Americans even know what that phrase means.

Then you have this too, which I seriously doubt is ever discussed in any school.

The question you propose, whether circumstances do not sometimes occur, which make it a duty in officers of high trust, to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”

September 20, 1810 – Thomas Jefferson Opines the Rule of Law is not the “Highest” Duty
Posted on September 20, 2014 by rhapsodyinbooks
On this date, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to John B. Colvin, in which he opined:




I suspect judges, who were lawyers, unconsciously reference that- unconsciously being the key. Lawyers are noted for stretching things out of proportion, and, Porter Rockwell, claiming to have been before the Bar for its examination to pass it, claims it is the most left wing organization in the country.
But, again, I point out it is systemic, not partisan.
And you, of all people, having read (and claimed to have posted this) should know better than to make it partisan. It isn't.
(Refer to my first sentence)

Americans first have to be properly educated. Then and only then will the systemic violations of the oath of office have a fighting chance. Corruption and intentional misinterpretation is a bi partisan affront to the Rule of Law. It is exacerbated in the mandated education which is trusted by the unknowing and worshiped by the ignorant simple because it is what is ingrained from the moment we gain an ounce of cognizance.

We operate under the edict of man- (see the current POTUS for affirmation and his predecessors)

Per the constitution

Power of POTUS

The constitution, being the Supreme Law, was passed (agreed to by signatures) to help ensure (insure before there was a different spelling/meaning) that the fed gov't didn't become oppressive or tyrannical - with so many federal laws on the books they can't even be counted, I don't see how it's not a bi partisan effort intended to restrict vs protect Liberty- the founders had an idea that citizens had the right to decide for themselves how to be governed and set up a system, which at the time, seemed to be logical to them as a system which could re-enforce/validate that- seeming logical to the founders is not what we use as the metric of logic today- that lays solely at the feet of improper education which is a bipartisan effort.

I hope you are about to demand that the education system be taken out from under the Liberal occupation.

It is the only hope that America has for a future.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. One of the battalion of Progressive jurists who plan ‘reading’ the Constitution out of existence is Justice Wm. Brennan, jr…1985 Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”

These folks claim that there is a “Living Constitution,” affixed with ‘adaptability’ and ‘fluidity.’
This way, they can get it to say whatever they want it to.





“Brennan falls back on the idea that moderns should not be bound by “a world that is dead and gone.” Of course, there are lots of laws on the books today by folks dead and gone: Social Security laws, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Sixteenth Amendment imposing an income tax, and all nine justices who participated in Roe v. Wade are now dead.

Would Brennan suggest ignoring any of these….or does he simply wish to allow judges to pick and choose which laws written by dead people we are to be bound by? No, this ‘transformative’ view would simply allow justices to erase parts of the Constitution.






…the ‘transformative’ view raises the level of generality of the Constitution in order to justify the left-wing outcomes that progressives want. Brennan identifies the Bill of Rights as protecting human dignity, then asks whether the death penalty, for example, is compatible with human dignity. A perfect example of sophistry, and lawyerly sleight of hand. The text of the Constitution does not speak vaguely of human dignity…but does specifically of freedom of speech, and of the press, about unreasonable searches and seizures, and about property not being taken capriciously. So, Brennan twists the ideas to produce what he deems good consequences. By that endeavor “the rule of law and not of men” becomes impossible.” “Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” by Steven G. Calabresi (Editor), Antonin Scalia (Foreword)



Protect us from Progressives teaching us how to ‘read.’

 

[Likkmee]

1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

 

[Gdjjr]

I hope you are about to demand that the education system be taken out from under the Liberal occupation.

I think it needs to be free from the State. Period. It's unconstitutional.

 

[Gdjjr]

8. One of the battalion of Progressive jurists who plan ‘reading’ the Constitution out of existence is Justice Wm. Brennan, jr…1985 Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”

These folks claim that there is a “Living Constitution,” affixed with ‘adaptability’ and ‘fluidity.’
This way, they can get it to say whatever they want it to.





“Brennan falls back on the idea that moderns should not be bound by “a world that is dead and gone.” Of course, there are lots of laws on the books today by folks dead and gone: Social Security laws, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Sixteenth Amendment imposing an income tax, and all nine justices who participated in Roe v. Wade are now dead.

Would Brennan suggest ignoring any of these….or does he simply wish to allow judges to pick and choose which laws written by dead people we are to be bound by? No, this ‘transformative’ view would simply allow justices to erase parts of the Constitution.






…the ‘transformative’ view raises the level of generality of the Constitution in order to justify the left-wing outcomes that progressives want. Brennan identifies the Bill of Rights as protecting human dignity, then asks whether the death penalty, for example, is compatible with human dignity. A perfect example of sophistry, and lawyerly sleight of hand. The text of the Constitution does not speak vaguely of human dignity…but does specifically of freedom of speech, and of the press, about unreasonable searches and seizures, and about property not being taken capriciously. So, Brennan twists the ideas to produce what he deems good consequences. By that endeavor “the rule of law and not of men” becomes impossible.” “Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” by Steven G. Calabresi (Editor), Antonin Scalia (Foreword)



Protect us from Progressives teaching us how to ‘read.’

That' s good 'reporting'! Bravo! - however, you're still using divisive language, which is what those you rail against do- it serves no useful purpose and exacerbates an already tenuous situation.

Since originalist is the topic:The "left' was "originally" anti State control of lives in the state. The "right" was originally militaristic in its endeavors to control the lives in the State. (think Hitler and Mussolini) Both words have been bastardized (intentionally misinterpreted) to suit a situation, except to politico's who change with the wind. Neither side acts constitutionally.
"Originally" "conservatives" were on the Kings side and the founders were "classical liberals"- I have asserted for years that conserve is the root of conservative- to conserve means to keep- status quo is the 25cent political word-

Fascism- Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. At the end of World War II, the major European fascist parties were broken up, and in some countries (such as Italy and West Germany) they were officially banned.

fascism | Definition, Characteristics, & History

I'd say we're in a form of soft (sometimes harsh depending on the situation) fascist rule and it could not be that way without cooperation from BOTH Party's.

You do a good job with these type postings- but, the bias is all wrong based on "originality", and, it is bipartisan amongst the body elect all 537 representatives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. One of the battalion of Progressive jurists who plan ‘reading’ the Constitution out of existence is Justice Wm. Brennan, jr…1985 Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”

These folks claim that there is a “Living Constitution,” affixed with ‘adaptability’ and ‘fluidity.’
This way, they can get it to say whatever they want it to.





“Brennan falls back on the idea that moderns should not be bound by “a world that is dead and gone.” Of course, there are lots of laws on the books today by folks dead and gone: Social Security laws, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Sixteenth Amendment imposing an income tax, and all nine justices who participated in Roe v. Wade are now dead.

Would Brennan suggest ignoring any of these….or does he simply wish to allow judges to pick and choose which laws written by dead people we are to be bound by? No, this ‘transformative’ view would simply allow justices to erase parts of the Constitution.






…the ‘transformative’ view raises the level of generality of the Constitution in order to justify the left-wing outcomes that progressives want. Brennan identifies the Bill of Rights as protecting human dignity, then asks whether the death penalty, for example, is compatible with human dignity. A perfect example of sophistry, and lawyerly sleight of hand. The text of the Constitution does not speak vaguely of human dignity…but does specifically of freedom of speech, and of the press, about unreasonable searches and seizures, and about property not being taken capriciously. So, Brennan twists the ideas to produce what he deems good consequences. By that endeavor “the rule of law and not of men” becomes impossible.” “Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” by Steven G. Calabresi (Editor), Antonin Scalia (Foreword)



Protect us from Progressives teaching us how to ‘read.’

That' s good 'reporting'! Bravo! - however, you're still using divisive language, which is what those you rail against do- it serves no useful purpose and exacerbates an already tenuous situation.

Since originalist is the topic:The "left' was "originally" anti State control of lives in the state. The "right" was originally militaristic in its endeavors to control the lives in the State. (think Hitler and Mussolini) Both words have been bastardized (intentionally misinterpreted) to suit a situation, except to politico's who change with the wind. Neither side acts constitutionally.
"Originally" "conservatives" were on the Kings side and the founders were "classical liberals"- I have asserted for years that conserve is the root of conservative- to conserve means to keep- status quo is the 25cent political word-

Fascism- Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. At the end of World War II, the major European fascist parties were broken up, and in some countries (such as Italy and West Germany) they were officially banned.

fascism | Definition, Characteristics, & History

I'd say we're in a form of soft (sometimes harsh depending on the situation) fascist rule and it could not be that way without cooperation from BOTH Party's.

You do a good job with these type postings- but, the bias is all wrong based on "originality", and, it is bipartisan amongst the body elect all 537 representatives.

Let's bring that up to date.


The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They all follow Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."



" Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise ... Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."
The Liberal Crackup

 

[Gdjjr]

Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state

And increased the debt how much?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state

And increased the debt how much?

Let's do the math.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan


Reaganomics - Wikipedia

 

[Gdjjr]

Let's bring that up to date.

You can't legitimately bring one up to date without bringing all up to date when selling originalist- because it then is no linger applicable.

 

[Gdjjr]

Let's do the math.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

That's not the point. Creating debt shackles. The justification is just an excuse.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's do the math.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

That's not the point. Creating debt shackles. The justification is just an excuse.

Actually, it is the point.

Reagan ushered in a golden age for average Americans.


In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:

"We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom-the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth-assets minus liabilities-of all U.S. households and business ... was $25 trillion in today's dollars. By 2007, ... net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years."
http://theccpp.org/2011/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures-1.html



“Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's bring that up to date.

You can't legitimately bring one up to date without bringing all up to date when selling originalist- because it then is no linger applicable.

Please explain what you mean.

The original meaning of the Constitution is the same as at its inception.

 

[Gdjjr]

Please explain what you mean.

The original meaning of the Constitution is the same as at its inception.

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They all follow Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."



" Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise ... Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."
The Liberal Crackup

This entire post explains what I said- only a bit more eloquently. I take exception to what Reagan "pictured" and the use of the words "once freed from the shackles".

So, I questioned "shackles" with the supposition that being in debt is "shackle" where you wanted to do the math, which is immaterial to shackles. Shackled is shackled be it one ankle or two it is still held down/back by debt, or, theft of property with an excuse to justify the theft.

An aside: The tax code is, IMO, intentionally complicated to give wiggle room (legal leeway) "in favor of those who shackle" and BOTH sides use it to their benefit to play musical chairs every 2, 4 and 6 years. The only difference is the rhetoric used to sell the tweak (more words, more esoteric nonsense added to too many words and too much wiggle room) desired.


I don't see the theft of property, or excuses to do so, in the original writing or in the intent- I have yet to see the words "may be interpreted" in the original agreement or in the letters or writings, though Jefferson did offer that the minority had to go along with the majority though the majority must remain aware of the minority.
Judges, lawyers and talking heads (chris wallace et al) are merely empty suits pretending to be something they aren't- intellectuals- with some sort of esoteric knowledge which can't/doesn't exist in something written in simple English.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please explain what you mean.

The original meaning of the Constitution is the same as at its inception.

The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They all follow Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."



" Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise ... Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."
The Liberal Crackup

This entire post explains what I said- only a bit more eloquently. I take exception to what Reagan "pictured" and the use of the words "once freed from the shackles".

So, I questioned "shackles" with the supposition that being in debt is "shackle" where you wanted to do the math, which is immaterial to shackles. Shackled is shackled be it one ankle or two it is still held down/back by debt, or, theft of property with an excuse to justify the theft.

An aside: The tax code is, IMO, intentionally complicated to give wiggle room (legal leeway) "in favor of those who shackle" and BOTH sides use it to their benefit to play musical chairs every 2, 4 and 6 years. The only difference is the rhetoric used to sell the tweak (more words, more esoteric nonsense added to too many words and too much wiggle room) desired.


I don't see the theft of property, or excuses to do so, in the original writing or in the intent- I have yet to see the words "may be interpreted" in the original agreement or in the letters or writings, though Jefferson did offer that the minority had to go along with the majority though the majority must remain aware of the minority.
Judges, lawyers and talking heads (chris wallace et al) are merely empty suits pretending to be something they aren't- intellectuals- with some sort of esoteric knowledge which can't/doesn't exist in something written in simple English.

I see a great deal of anger, and disappointment in that post....and, largely, I have to agree with it.
But it doesn't focus in on the real flaw in our government....

....people. Human nature.....greed.


The Constitution commemorates our revolution, and, as Madison states in the ‘Federalist,’ is the greatest of all reflections on human nature…human beings are not angels.”

Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution....hence checks and balances.



The secularists believe that they are as God....and can create a new man, that they can change human nature.

The birth of "The New Soviet Man" was the stated aim of Marxism, breeding a new evolutionary form of human being who will think, look, and act differently. The next was the Nazi attempt to do exactly the same thing: in German, "We must create a new man! A new life form should appear!"

"In both systems we have the ideology of creating a new man. Both systems don't agree with human nature as it is...they are at war with human nature. Both are based on false biology, and false sociology."
Françoise Thom, professor of Soviet history, Sorbonne, Paris


Of course, it isn't possible.



Politicians have found ways to spin straw into gold....to enrich themselves....and you correctly pointed out the way: loopholes.
They write bills to squeeze industry, and industry bribes them with 'lobbyists'......Hunder Biden, Hillary Clinton.


They hate Trump because he has infringed on their racket:
"Deregulation Nation: Trump Admin Killing 13 Regulations For Each New One

One of President Donald Trump’s campaign promises was to roll back Obama-era regulations and to lift a variety of restrictions put in place by the mammoth bureaucracy that is our federal government.

He stated in the lead-up to the 2016 election that he intended to eliminate two regulations for every new one. To date, the Trump administration is far exceeding that goal, eliminating 13 regulations for every new one.


The Washington Examiner reports:

“We’ve hit 13 to 1,” [Russ Vought, acting budget office director] told a Heritage Foundation conference on federalism. And cutting so many regulations, he added, has saved taxpayers $33 billion.

Departments and agencies including the departments of Labor, Education, Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency have led the war on regulations, according to federal reports.

Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, said that President Trump has a builder’s approach to regulations and federalism.

“It is the best kind because it is real and it’s born of real world experience,” said the former House member.

“The president has it because he had to go and pull a permit to build a building and deal with bureaucracy and doesn’t like that and knows why that impedes growth and impedes development, impedes creativity,” said Mulvaney."
Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Deregulation Nation: Trump Admin Killing 13 Regulations For Each New One



Think bank robbers would be upset if Trump took away their guns?

Same thing here.


Unfortunately, I don't see another Trump on the horizon.