Relearning the lesson

[Darkwind]

It really is just this basic.

 

[blastoff]

Well that sure clears up the angst over taxpayers footing the bill for a prisoner's sex change operation.

 

[beretta304]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/247495-celebrating-constitution-day.html

 

[jillian]

It really is just this basic.

you understand that the federalist papers was kind of like the blog of its day, right.

it isn't law. it's just political discussion.

 

[jillian]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/247495-celebrating-constitution-day.html

the federalist papers aren't the constitution.

thanks for playing.

 

[beretta304]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/247495-celebrating-constitution-day.html

the federalist papers aren't the constitution.

thanks for playing.

No one said they are moron. It's about the day. See the word "Constitution"? Stick your thanks up your shit filled ass! I hear an ambulance siren that you can bark at and chase.

 

[Shelzin]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/247495-celebrating-constitution-day.html

the federalist papers aren't the constitution.

thanks for playing.

Are you suggesting that it's wrong?

 

[beretta304]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/247495-celebrating-constitution-day.html

the federalist papers aren't the constitution.

thanks for playing.

Are you suggesting that it's wrong?

She's a one sentence idiot that everyone laughs at. Pay her no mind. She does her best work in the Flame Zone. She gets off on insulting people and being nasty. She reaps what she sows.


The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist; or, The New Constitution, was published in two volumes in 1788 by J. and A. McLean. The series' correct title is The Federalist; the title The Federalist Papers did not emerge until the twentieth century

 

[Mad Scientist]

you understand that the federalist papers was kind of like the blog of its day, right. it isn't law. it's just political discussion.

Not just "Blog Political Discussion" but discussion by two actual signers of the Constitution, the third being John Jay.

the federalist papers aren't the constitution. thanks for playing.

Nor did OP say they were. There were a series of articles arguing the benefits and justification of creating and signing the Constitution.

OP is correct in stating that the Constitution limits GOVERNMENT not PEOPLE, but you didn't like that (because it's true) so you tried to minimize the historical significance of the Federalist Papers by equating it to a simple mindless blog. Well it isn't.

Fail.

 

[Darkwind]

It really is just this basic.

you understand that the federalist papers was kind of like the blog of its day, right.

it isn't law. it's just political discussion.

You do understand that the Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government and not the power of the people.


right?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

It really is just this basic.

you understand that the federalist papers was kind of like the blog of its day, right.

it isn't law. it's just political discussion.

You do understand that the Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government and not the power of the people.


right?

No, she doesn't get it. She's like a big Doe-Doe bird flying around directionless shitting on everyone's lawns, cars, etc.. In other words, she's meaningless except for the giant stinking pile of shit she leaves behind.

 

[beretta304]

you understand that the federalist papers was kind of like the blog of its day, right.

it isn't law. it's just political discussion.

You do understand that the Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government and not the power of the people.


right?

No, she doesn't get it. She's like a big Doe-Doe bird flying around directionless shitting on everyone's lawns, cars, etc.. In other words, she's meaningless except for the giant stinking pile of shit she leaves behind.

Careful! She's a "lawyer".

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

You do understand that the Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government and not the power of the people.


right?

No, she doesn't get it. She's like a big Doe-Doe bird flying around directionless shitting on everyone's lawns, cars, etc.. In other words, she's meaningless except for the giant stinking pile of shit she leaves behind.

Careful! She's a "lawyer".

Yea right..Ok. The game of Life doesn't count. Real law degree's require actual research to include case law and that annoying thing liberals despise, THE US CONSTITUTION.

 

[beretta304]

No, she doesn't get it. She's like a big Doe-Doe bird flying around directionless shitting on everyone's lawns, cars, etc.. In other words, she's meaningless except for the giant stinking pile of shit she leaves behind.

Careful! She's a "lawyer".

Yea right..Ok. The game of Life doesn't count. Real law degree's require actual research to include case law and that annoying thing liberals despise, THE US CONSTITUTION.

I bet she wet herself when Roberts stabbed the nation in the back under the guise of upholding the law. But to his credit he did say it was a tax which libshits still deny.

 

[eflatminor]

It really is just this basic.

One thing I've never heard a modern liberal/Progressive/Dem explain using any logic or reason is this: If you believe the Constitution allows all this government meddling in markets and liberty, what exactly is the point of having clearly enumerated powers and the 10th amendment?

Anyone?

 

[Darkwind]

It really is just this basic.

One thing I've never heard a modern liberal/Progressive/Dem explain using any logic or reason is this: If you believe the Constitution allows all this government meddling in markets and liberty, what exactly is the point of having clearly enumerated powers and the 10th amendment?

Anyone?

theyt often misquote the 'general welfare' clause of the Constitution as if that alone is the sole key to limitless power exercised by the Federal Government.

They are, of course, wrong.

 

[eflatminor]

It really is just this basic.

One thing I've never heard a modern liberal/Progressive/Dem explain using any logic or reason is this: If you believe the Constitution allows all this government meddling in markets and liberty, what exactly is the point of having clearly enumerated powers and the 10th amendment?

Anyone?

theyt often misquote the 'general welfare' clause of the Constitution as if that alone is the sole key to limitless power exercised by the Federal Government.

They are, of course, wrong.

Exactly! If the general welfare clause (or the commerce clause for that matter), was meant to allow near limitless meddling by the federal government, what was the point of enumerating powers and making the limits contained therein CRYSTAL CLEAR via the 10th amendment?

 

[Dick Tuck]

It really is just this basic.

One thing I've never heard a modern liberal/Progressive/Dem explain using any logic or reason is this: If you believe the Constitution allows all this government meddling in markets and liberty, what exactly is the point of having clearly enumerated powers and the 10th amendment?

Anyone?

The answer isn't that hard. You forgot to say the magic word.

 

[eflatminor]

It really is just this basic.

One thing I've never heard a modern liberal/Progressive/Dem explain using any logic or reason is this: If you believe the Constitution allows all this government meddling in markets and liberty, what exactly is the point of having clearly enumerated powers and the 10th amendment?

Anyone?

The answer isn't that hard. You forgot to say the magic word.

Nullification?

 

[Barb]

It really is just this basic.

Define "people."

When Reagan became Governor of California, (Once the introductory niceties were taken care of) he began his Inaugural Address with sentiments that speak to the very heart of what every American used to understand about what it is to be a free people, about democracy, and about the principles that defined our representative republic:

Perhaps you and I have lived with this miracle too long to be properly appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.
Knowing this, it is hard to explain those who even today would question the people’s capacity for self-rule.182 […] Government is the people’s business, and every man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid

Reagan, Ronald, Governor of California, Inauguration Address, January 5, 1967, retrieved December 11, 2011 from Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, National Archives and Records Administration

Can someone point out for the class where it is written in the Constitution that we aren’t citizens until we’re tax-payers? No? That’s because it’s not there.

With all the profound wording of the Constitution, probably the most meaningful words are the first three, ―We, the People.‖ […] We are of the people, chosen by them to see that no permanent structure of government ever encroaches on freedom or assumes a power beyond that freely granted by the people.

Those would have been heartening words if you weren‘t really listening very closely, almost as if Reagan began his political career with an understanding of individual liberty, and sympathy for ―we, the people.‖ However, ―we weren‘t ―the people he was speaking of.

He left room for other “permanent structures” to encroach “on freedom [and assume] a power beyond that freely granted by the people.”

And those were not people. Those were legal constructs, fabrications of contract law that neither bled, nor bred, nor hungered, lusted, or died as HUMAN PEOPLE do, to direct our government, to limit the volume of OUR voices ON OUR government, and to make that government, our supposedly representative republic, responsive to the command of the false conglomerate computerized "voices" to the detriment of the human people our Constitutional laws were designed to protect FROM them.

THIS is what you advocate, THIS is the "freedom" you and all others like you push and gnash and grasp for. You scream for your own subjugation, and when the day comes where someone threatens to free you from those chains you respond, in typical knee-jerk fashion, by calling that force illegitimate, foreign, and socialist.

If you knew, and I'm not even that sure that you don't, what this, OUR COUNTY has done to democratically elected nations to support military dictatorships amenable to corporate subjugation of their people, that borrowed our wealth to fund their degradation and whose people continue to pay interest on those loans, you might still lend your voice in support of such endeavors in your own country, one which you supposedly love (gag). I would have hoped not, but honestly, I have no more good natured reality to suspend. You all allowed that shit to come right on home, and you're defending it HERE.