Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make. "not to play some infallible Pope forcing us to bend to your will". What Pope? Me? Where did mob rule enter the discussion? What inferior people, Constitutionalists?Inferior People Have a Pathetic Need to Feel Superior to the MajorityAmerica did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Americans should make their own political decisions, not be tied down for centuries by shallow and primitive aristocratic ideas from the horse-and-buggy era. You want to be some entitled bully bossing everybody around by telling us we can't ask only whether some proposal is good for the country, but first have to check with some self-appointed supremacy document. Believing that majority rule is "mob rule" is the lowest form of self-glorifying treason. If you don't like what the majority thinks, the only option you should be allowed is to try to persuade us to change our opinions, not to play some infallible Pope forcing us to bend to your will.
Constitutionazis Slurping and DroolingInferior People Have a Pathetic Need to Feel Superior to the MajorityAmerica did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Americans should make their own political decisions, not be tied down for centuries by shallow and primitive aristocratic ideas from the horse-and-buggy era. You want to be some entitled bully bossing everybody around by telling us we can't ask only whether some proposal is good for the country, but first have to check with some self-appointed supremacy document. Believing that majority rule is "mob rule" is the lowest form of self-glorifying treason. If you don't like what the majority thinks, the only option you should be allowed is to try to persuade us to change our opinions, not to play some infallible Pope forcing us to bend to your will.
"Self appointed supremacy document?" Could you possibly be any more of an America hating douchebag?
Puppets Programmed by the Plutocracy: Why They Allowed This Copycat InternetI'm not even sure what point you are trying to make. "not to play some infallible Pope forcing us to bend to your will". What Pope? Me? Where did mob rule enter the discussion? What inferior people, Constitutionalists?Inferior People Have a Pathetic Need to Feel Superior to the MajorityAmerica did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Americans should make their own political decisions, not be tied down for centuries by shallow and primitive aristocratic ideas from the horse-and-buggy era. You want to be some entitled bully bossing everybody around by telling us we can't ask only whether some proposal is good for the country, but first have to check with some self-appointed supremacy document. Believing that majority rule is "mob rule" is the lowest form of self-glorifying treason. If you don't like what the majority thinks, the only option you should be allowed is to try to persuade us to change our opinions, not to play some infallible Pope forcing us to bend to your will.
Constitutionazis Slurping and DroolingInferior People Have a Pathetic Need to Feel Superior to the MajorityAmerica did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Americans should make their own political decisions, not be tied down for centuries by shallow and primitive aristocratic ideas from the horse-and-buggy era. You want to be some entitled bully bossing everybody around by telling us we can't ask only whether some proposal is good for the country, but first have to check with some self-appointed supremacy document. Believing that majority rule is "mob rule" is the lowest form of self-glorifying treason. If you don't like what the majority thinks, the only option you should be allowed is to try to persuade us to change our opinions, not to play some infallible Pope forcing us to bend to your will.
"Self appointed supremacy document?" Could you possibly be any more of an America hating douchebag?
An 18th Century document that empowers an oligarchy doesn't stand for America. It stands in America's way. Could you possibly be any more of a suck-up to the status quo?
Constitutionazis Slurping and DroolingInferior People Have a Pathetic Need to Feel Superior to the MajorityAmerica did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Americans should make their own political decisions, not be tied down for centuries by shallow and primitive aristocratic ideas from the horse-and-buggy era. You want to be some entitled bully bossing everybody around by telling us we can't ask only whether some proposal is good for the country, but first have to check with some self-appointed supremacy document. Believing that majority rule is "mob rule" is the lowest form of self-glorifying treason. If you don't like what the majority thinks, the only option you should be allowed is to try to persuade us to change our opinions, not to play some infallible Pope forcing us to bend to your will.
"Self appointed supremacy document?" Could you possibly be any more of an America hating douchebag?
An 18th Century document that empowers an oligarchy doesn't stand for America. It stands in America's way. Could you possibly be any more of a suck-up to the status quo?
we allege to subscribe to Capitalism. only lousy management stands in America's way.Constitutionazis Slurping and DroolingInferior People Have a Pathetic Need to Feel Superior to the MajorityAmerica did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Americans should make their own political decisions, not be tied down for centuries by shallow and primitive aristocratic ideas from the horse-and-buggy era. You want to be some entitled bully bossing everybody around by telling us we can't ask only whether some proposal is good for the country, but first have to check with some self-appointed supremacy document. Believing that majority rule is "mob rule" is the lowest form of self-glorifying treason. If you don't like what the majority thinks, the only option you should be allowed is to try to persuade us to change our opinions, not to play some infallible Pope forcing us to bend to your will.
"Self appointed supremacy document?" Could you possibly be any more of an America hating douchebag?
An 18th Century document that empowers an oligarchy doesn't stand for America. It stands in America's way. Could you possibly be any more of a suck-up to the status quo?
some on the left call it, crony capitalism.Puppets Programmed by the Plutocracy: Why They Allowed This Copycat InternetI'm not even sure what point you are trying to make. "not to play some infallible Pope forcing us to bend to your will". What Pope? Me? Where did mob rule enter the discussion? What inferior people, Constitutionalists?Inferior People Have a Pathetic Need to Feel Superior to the MajorityAmerica did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Americans should make their own political decisions, not be tied down for centuries by shallow and primitive aristocratic ideas from the horse-and-buggy era. You want to be some entitled bully bossing everybody around by telling us we can't ask only whether some proposal is good for the country, but first have to check with some self-appointed supremacy document. Believing that majority rule is "mob rule" is the lowest form of self-glorifying treason. If you don't like what the majority thinks, the only option you should be allowed is to try to persuade us to change our opinions, not to play some infallible Pope forcing us to bend to your will.
Typical Netwit dodge. Pretend you're confused because you can't handle forbidden perspectives.
What do historians make of originalism? Jack Rakove, the Stanford historian and one of the foremost experts on the revolutionary era, argues that there wasn’t just one meaning of the Constitution at the time it was written and then ratified, but rather the founders had disagreements among themselves over its meaning.
He points to the great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, who wrote that “historians can never forget that it is a debate they are interpreting.”
The inability to recognize the extent to which the Founding Fathers argued among themselves is a major flaw in the conservative case for originalism since it is dependent on the theory that people in the 18th century shared a common interpretation of the Constitution.
In fact, they did not, as one of the earliest debates over the meaning of the Constitution shows.
The Founders Would Not Recognize Originalism—Why Should We?
They didn't have some requirement to limit the vote to the minority of property owners. They believed that only the educated and moneyed should vote. Both Adams and Jefferson thought that. So did Washington.That was what they had to work with; what they Wrote, was something else, from Inception.The constitution was written to preserve the wealth of the elite. Jefferson believed in the self-government of the educated and property (slave) owning white male.right wing Intelligence?Disagree. It was a document for white men with property.Our federal Constitution was, intelligently designed, to be Both, gender and race neutral, from Inception.
They Wrote the federal doctrine, after the Declaration of Independence.
They had to work with what they had at the time.
Jacksonian democracy broadened the message to the ill educated and laboring classes ... of white males.
The Constitution of the United States is Evolutionary in nature, not Stagnant.America did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
The Constitution of the United States is Evolutionary in nature, not Stagnant.America did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Its interpretation changes to match the changing needs of The People and their Republic.
The Founding Fathers would be just fine with that; most would probably applaud that.
And for the handful who would not be fine with that, we'll just have to settle for disagreeing at a distance of 230 years or so.
Here is what the founders wouldn't recognize:
What do historians make of originalism? Jack Rakove, the Stanford historian and one of the foremost experts on the revolutionary era, argues that there wasn’t just one meaning of the Constitution at the time it was written and then ratified, but rather the founders had disagreements among themselves over its meaning.
He points to the great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, who wrote that “historians can never forget that it is a debate they are interpreting.”
The inability to recognize the extent to which the Founding Fathers argued among themselves is a major flaw in the conservative case for originalism since it is dependent on the theory that people in the 18th century shared a common interpretation of the Constitution.
In fact, they did not, as one of the earliest debates over the meaning of the Constitution shows.
The Founders Would Not Recognize Originalism—Why Should We?
The Supreme Court of the United States has been interpreting the Constitution on a case-by-case basis for 230 years.The Constitution of the United States is Evolutionary in nature, not Stagnant.America did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Its interpretation changes to match the changing needs of The People and their Republic.
The Founding Fathers would be just fine with that; most would probably applaud that.
And for the handful who would not be fine with that, we'll just have to settle for disagreeing at a distance of 230 years or so.
Fuck the change by interpretation. That's not how it's supposed to work. the Founding Fathers sure as hell wouldn't be fine with it.
The Constitution of the United States is Evolutionary in nature, not Stagnant.America did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Its interpretation changes to match the changing needs of The People and their Republic.
The Founding Fathers would be just fine with that; most would probably applaud that.
And for the handful who would not be fine with that, we'll just have to settle for disagreeing at a distance of 230 years or so.
Fuck the change by interpretation. That's not how it's supposed to work. the Founding Fathers sure as hell wouldn't be fine with it.
The Supreme Court of the United States has been interpreting the Constitution on a case-by-case basis for 230 years.The Constitution of the United States is Evolutionary in nature, not Stagnant.America did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Its interpretation changes to match the changing needs of The People and their Republic.
The Founding Fathers would be just fine with that; most would probably applaud that.
And for the handful who would not be fine with that, we'll just have to settle for disagreeing at a distance of 230 years or so.
Fuck the change by interpretation. That's not how it's supposed to work. the Founding Fathers sure as hell wouldn't be fine with it.
In doing so, it is a Last Line of Defense against despotism in the Oval Office.
But thank you for your feedback anyway...
The Supreme Court of the United States has been interpreting the Constitution on a case-by-case basis for 230 years.The Constitution of the United States is Evolutionary in nature, not Stagnant.America did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Its interpretation changes to match the changing needs of The People and their Republic.
The Founding Fathers would be just fine with that; most would probably applaud that.
And for the handful who would not be fine with that, we'll just have to settle for disagreeing at a distance of 230 years or so.
Fuck the change by interpretation. That's not how it's supposed to work. the Founding Fathers sure as hell wouldn't be fine with it.
In doing so, it is a Last Line of Defense against despotism in the Oval Office.
But thank you for your feedback anyway...
The Constitution of the United States is Evolutionary in nature, not Stagnant.America did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Its interpretation changes to match the changing needs of The People and their Republic.
The Founding Fathers would be just fine with that; most would probably applaud that.
And for the handful who would not be fine with that, we'll just have to settle for disagreeing at a distance of 230 years or so.
Fuck the change by interpretation. That's not how it's supposed to work. the Founding Fathers sure as hell wouldn't be fine with it.
It's almost as though they included a process for changing the Constitution because they DIDN'T want it "changing by interpretation".
Agreed.The arguments for the so-called "living Constitution" are all beyond stupid.
Have you heard about the amendment process?The Constitution of the United States is Evolutionary in nature, not Stagnant.America did not happen by accident. Without the Constitution as the guiding document and the STRICT interpretation of it, America would be Northern Mexico.
Its interpretation changes to match the changing needs of The People and their Republic.
The Founding Fathers would be just fine with that; most would probably applaud that.
And for the handful who would not be fine with that, we'll just have to settle for disagreeing at a distance of 230 years or so.
