CausingPAIN
Rookie
- Banned
- #21
federalist should be restricting the rights of the wingnuts just them will for now, we can get to lugnuts later they appear to be rational. it's just political discussion.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not just "Blog Political Discussion" but discussion by two actual signers of the Constitution, the third being John Jay.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.
Nor did OP say they were. There were a series of articles arguing the benefits and justification of creating and signing the Constitution.the federalist papers aren't the constitution. thanks for playing.
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.
Not just "Blog Political Discussion" but discussion by two actual signers of the Constitution, the third being John Jay.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.
Nor did OP say they were. There were a series of articles arguing the benefits and justification of creating and signing the Constitution.the federalist papers aren't the constitution. thanks for playing.
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.
And again, please, define "people."
Samuel Adams Quotes (Author of The Dissenters)If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
― Samuel Adams
The progressive radical wing insists they are smarter and have a better understanding of life in general, therefor we should all think and act as they do. They are of superior intelligence. If anyone rejects their ideas then the government should step in and demand laws be passed that are in line with their beliefs.
Obama is a perfect example of this, he knows what's best for us even if we don't. When congress rejects his ideas he just writes an executive order of chooses to just ignore the law. Pelosi and Reid are another fine example of pressing their fellow congressmen/women to get their way.
You do understand that the Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government and not the power of the people.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.
right?
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?
If our current politicians wrote a treatise on how they view the Constitution, would we get something similiar to the Federalist Papers?
Or something closer to the novel 1984?
If you really want to celebrate the constitution, exercise your rights!!
PeopleNot just "Blog Political Discussion" but discussion by two actual signers of the Constitution, the third being John Jay.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.
Nor did OP say they were. There were a series of articles arguing the benefits and justification of creating and signing the Constitution.the federalist papers aren't the constitution. thanks for playing.
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.
And again, please, define "people."
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.
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.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?
They are, of course, wrong.
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.
After all that, I conclude that you still have not learned the lesson.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:
Reagan, Ronald, Governor of California, Inauguration Address, January 5, 1967, retrieved December 11, 2011 from Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, National Archives and Records AdministrationPerhaps 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 peoples capacity for self-rule.182 [ ] Government is the peoples business, and every man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid
Can someone point out for the class where it is written in the Constitution that we arent citizens until were tax-payers? No? Thats because its not there.
Those would have been heartening words if you werent 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 werent ―the people he was speaking of.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.
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.
What does this have to do with the concept that the Constitution limits power of government, not people?There's nothing in the Constitution about child labor or working conditions, is there? No. So are laws about these things unconstitutional? No.
Unlike the full o' fail libertarian theory that exploitative businesses would find that no one would to work for them, the bosses of old were unified and successful in exploiting workers, calling out their Pinkerton goons if the employees demanded fairness.
So the government passed laws, the Supreme Court heard cases, and the laws were upheld.
Even with the most obstructionist Congress in history, laws still get passed all the time. If they weren't, we'd be living like Charles Dickens characters.
Like it or not, things change with time and we have to keep up with the changes.
Government is operating outside the boundary of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has not ruled upon this. The commerce clause is NOT an open check to abuse the citizenry, or to help the citizenry.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.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?
They are, of course, wrong.
no. "they" aren't. and i'd suggest that a reading of the supreme court cases on the commerce clause does exactly what it should... allows for the operation of government. if we were supposed to be state centric and not have a strong central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.
and thanks so much for your opinion that "they are... wrong"... i'm sure the justices of the supreme court who wrote all of those decisions would be amused to learn that you know more about the constitution than they do/did.
and even in the grey areas... where you get splits along party lines... half the justices would disagree with you. your idea of what the constitution is bears no relationship with what most people are taught about constitutional construction.
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.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?
They are, of course, wrong.
no. "they" aren't. and i'd suggest that a reading of the supreme court cases on the commerce clause does exactly what it should... allows for the operation of government. if we were supposed to be state centric and not have a strong central government, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.
and thanks so much for your opinion that "they are... wrong"... i'm sure the justices of the supreme court who wrote all of those decisions would be amused to learn that you know more about the constitution than they do/did.
and even in the grey areas... where you get splits along party lines... half the justices would disagree with you. your idea of what the constitution is bears no relationship with what most people are taught about constitutional construction.
the federalist papers aren't the constitution.
thanks for playing.
Quote: Originally Posted by eflatminor
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?