the constitution

[Cecilie1200]

when did it become irrelevant? it seems whenever BIG GOVERNMENT on both sides of the aisle deems something a "crises" they completely dismiss the constitution and ram something through. why is this?

what part of the constitution, specifically, do you believe is now being abrogated that wasn't abrogated over the past eight years?

When did he ever say "now as opposed to the past eight years"? Why are you trying to shoehorn your little Cult of Personality Politics into this?

 

[Cecilie1200]

when did it become irrelevant? it seems whenever BIG GOVERNMENT on both sides of the aisle deems something a "crises" they completely dismiss the constitution and ram something through. why is this?

The Patriot Act, for example? It was passed because Bush&Co are not interested in the rule of law, when the rule of law limits their power. Of course it was voted for by Democrats too, cowards who were so fearful they would be characterized as a party weak on natonal security, members in both the House and Senate voted yea to protect their jobs.

Wow. Not even through the first page, and already not one, but TWO partisan hacks have felt the need to wedge a little Bush Derangement Syndrome into this. Are you tweekos really so incapable of discussing a general issue without having to make it about "Your guy sucked, our guy is fantastic"? It's times like this that I wish there was an emoticon for spitting on the floor in disgust.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

This is just Horrible!

Imagine people in the richest nation on earth wanting a decent education, a roof over their head, food. clothing, care when they are too old to work

What the hell was FDR thinking?

There's a big difference between wanting them and feeling entitled to have someone else guarantee them to you.

 

[ihopehefails]

Over 90% (11.1 Trillion out of 11.9 Trillion) of our country's debt was built up during Republican administrations, or as a result of interest on said debt.

Red States pay a smaller share of the taxes, per capita, and receive a larger share of Federal Funding, per capita.

Since I assume you're referring to Democrats with your lame accusations of "buying votes with welfare checks", how do you explain this?

Or were you referring to the Republicans?

I suspect that most of that money is being spent on federally mandated programs that the federal government demands each state to do. Every dollar has a condition attached to the spending in such a way that that money gets spent on whatever the federal government wants them to do. Its not an act of charity but a way to get states to comply with the federal government so it has its own purpose that has nothing to do with charity. This is why red states might get more money because they tend to resist the federal government more so more money is needed to get the state legislatures to comply.

Now maybe you make a point about Red States not accepting money but what power to citizens have to stop it when the legislatures hide the spending so that their voters don't know how that money is getting spent so its really a way of corrupting state governments into getting them to do the federal government's bidding.

Which is why we should never blame the victim of this crime aka red state voters and blame the perpetrators of the crime and that is the federal government itself.

Pavlovian Response rewards compliance, not non compliance. the Blue need good roads and transport through the Red States, otherwise they have problems accessing their toys. You have it backwards.

YOu missed the point. I was not saying it was a reward for voluntarily doing something but a bribe with conditions attached because every federal dollar has mandates on them and can't be spent as the state chooses and most people in power like having the money and things built for them so they don't resist and they don't tell the voters why they are passing strange laws that no one asked for except someone at the federal level.

 

[ihopehefails]

when did it become irrelevant? it seems whenever BIG GOVERNMENT on both sides of the aisle deems something a "crises" they completely dismiss the constitution and ram something through. why is this?

Because the Constitution was designed to be an impediment to government and politicians, so it's not surprising that they treat it as such. The surprise is that it was designed to impede them to protect US, but we let them get away with it.

Yes. The constitution was suppose to be a set of laws for the people in power about things they can do when they have that power.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Red States pay a smaller share of the taxes, per capita, and receive a larger share of Federal Funding, per capita.

Since I assume you're referring to Democrats with your lame accusations of "buying votes with welfare checks", how do you explain this?

Which use of red and blue are you using? How are you "calculating" per capita expenditure?
Do Republican state produce significantly more Soldiers? If so are their salaries counted toward money spent on their home state?
Is money spent on NASA counted as going to the state where employees live?

Consider ONLY Welfare expenditure. What does that do to your claim?
Welfare was instituted by Democrats.
Every welfare recipient whose political affiliation I have ever known was a Democrat.
That suggests something to me.

If you can find easily digested statistics on Welfare rates and candidate parties, I would be happy to look for a mathematical correlation between welfare spending in a District and likelihood of a Democratic candidate being elected in the district. I suspect If the numbers are easy to look at the correlation will be obvious, and that the conclusion any impartial reader will make is that in fact Welfare recipients overwhelmingly vote democratic.
If that's not buying votes I don't have a better example