We must restore constitutional government

[jillian]

For the uniformed..... "constitutional" is whatever the supreme court says it is.

even when it's as stupid a decision as citizen's united or heller.

but i love when people who get their "constitutional" education from the rightwing blogosphere pretend they know what "constitutional" is.

 

[TexM3]

That the ignorance and stupidity exhibited by conservatives in the thread has not come to pass, nor will it ever come to pass, is proof that we currently have Constitutional governance.

More BS, we have a corporate oligarchy masquerading as a Constitutional government. Stop being dishonest...

The money has always dominated our governments.

It always will.

But it can be limited at times by progressive populist revolutions, like now, that are going on in both parties.

And that's why the fed gov is supposed to be limited to its enumerated powers. Power corrupts...the founders knew that, modern day libs evidently don't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Put down the nitrogen gas, TexM3

 

[P@triot]

That the ignorance and stupidity exhibited by conservatives in the thread has not come to pass, nor will it ever come to pass, is proof that we currently have Constitutional governance.

Which is why you've avoided every undeniable example like the plague...right junior?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The money has always dominated our governments."

True – and it likely always will.

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the wrongheaded myth of ‘restoring’ Constitutional government.

 

[Centinel]

You do not how the understand is created, adapted, changed, etc., is the point here.

I understand how the states established the constitution, and I understand the amendment process. You seem to be saying that because a law is old that it is somehow invalid. Is that your stance? Why did you bring up the age of the constitution?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Although in of itself it has no legal authority or bearing, it’s nonetheless a primary source illustrating the original intent of the Framers with regard to the courts, the supremacy of the rule of law, and that we in fact currently have Constitutional governance:

“The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.


Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.”


FEDERALIST No. 78

“…the power of the people is superior to both” the legislative and judicial branches of government, reflecting the original understanding and intent of the Founding Generation that they be subject solely to the rule of law, as codified by the people in the Constitution, with the understanding that the courts would determine what the Constitution means.

“…the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.”

Meaning that it was the intent of the Framers that the courts determine what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution, where the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.

That these settled, accepted, and fundamental facts of our Constitutional Republic – facts that are beyond dispute – must be explained to far too many Americans is both sad and disturbing, and that they must be explained to conservatives comes as no surprise.

 

[RandallFlagg]

CNN's Jake Tapper just did an in-depth report on Hillary (The murderer) Clintons Emails. Here is his report:

POLITICS
CNN’s Jake Tapper Brutally Fact Checks Clinton’s Email Claims — See What He Found Out
May. 14, 2016 8:07pm Tré Goins-Phillips
3.9K
SHARES
CNN anchor Jake Tapper teamed up with FactCheck.org to examine Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton’s claims about her private email server — and the results weren’t pretty.

Tapper first checked on the validity of Clinton’s claim that she was “absolutely permitted” to use a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.


AP

“Was Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for official business while she was secretary of state ‘absolutely permitted?’” Tapper asked. “No — that’s not true.”

According to Tapper, Clinton only says that because she permitted herself to use the personal server “and there was no one absolutely prohibiting her,” but no one actually signed off on her using it.

Federal regulations did allow Clinton to send and receive emails outside the government system, but, as the CNN host noted, it was mandatory that those emails were preserved when she left office.

“Clinton did not provide the State Department with the emails from her private server until 21 months after she left office,” Tapper said, adding that a federal judge said the former secretary of state “failed to follow government policy on preserving federal records.”

Another expert described the fact that Clinton used her private server to store sensitive information exclusively as “inconsistent with long-established policies and practices … governing all federal agencies.”

“In the end,” Tapper said, “Clinton’s exclusive use of her private email server for the people’s business was definitely unusual, it was definitely discouraged and she did not comply with government regulations when it came to preserving government records.”

Tapper concluded the report with a simple instruction “to all politicians out there,” saying, “You’re perfectly entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.”






—





—

Follow the author of this story on Twitter:


Looks as though CNN is FINALLY wising up a bit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Go talk to SCOTUS, please, Centinel.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The people tasked with enforcing our laws are the same people violating our most important laws....

Beyond the controversial ways stingray technology works, the secrecy and deception law enforcement agencies use to cloak their use of the devices is also troubling. Law enforcement agencies around the country have routinely used the devices without obtaining a warrant from judges. In cases where they did obtain a warrant, they often deceived judges about the nature of the technology they planned to use. Instead of telling judges that they intended to use a stingray or cell site simulator, they have often mischaracterized the technology, describing it as a pen register device instead.

Hacker Lexicon: Stingrays, the Spy Tool the Government Tried, and Failed, to Hide

Indeed - those that laud over us are generally the biggest law-breakers in the United States. Look no farther than the rotten, no-good Clintons.

Like I've said here a million times - I held a TS SC3 Clearance while in the Army. Had I treated classified information like the SOS did - I would be in Leavenworth, most likely with a life sentence. Now - you idiot liberals - tell me that out "leaders" don't get a pass when it comes to the "law".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure thing, ranger rick.

 

[Dale Smith]

We are not under the organic constitution that was passed in 1787 and anyone that says differently is a fucking moron. Act of 1871, anyone? The corporate charter that was passed that made us "U.S citizens" instead of sovereigns is what the original constitution was against. Do your fucking homework, leftards. The OP is "dead on" and 100 percent correct, I have posted about this before and loaded it with pertinent information and I am getting fucking tired of constantly repeating myself. Prove that I am wrong or STFU....seriously.

 

[RandallFlagg]

We are not under the organic constitution that was passed in 1787 and anyone that says differently is a fucking moron. Act of 1871, anyone? The corporate charter that was passed that made us "U.S citizens" instead of sovereigns is what the original constitution was against. Do your fucking homework, leftards. The OP is "dead on" and 100 percent correct, I have posted about this before and loaded it with pertinent information and I am getting fucking tired of constantly repeating myself. Prove that I am wrong or STFU....seriously.

Now, now....be easy on the left....to them the Constitution is a "living, breathing document".

 

[Dale Smith]

We are not under the organic constitution that was passed in 1787 and anyone that says differently is a fucking moron. Act of 1871, anyone? The corporate charter that was passed that made us "U.S citizens" instead of sovereigns is what the original constitution was against. Do your fucking homework, leftards. The OP is "dead on" and 100 percent correct, I have posted about this before and loaded it with pertinent information and I am getting fucking tired of constantly repeating myself. Prove that I am wrong or STFU....seriously.

Now, now....be easy on the left....to them the Constitution is a "living, breathing document".

But these people are so fucking stupid, Randall....I mean utterly fucking STUPID and clueless. I should be charging these idiots for the stuff I have spent thousands of hours researching...it's a fucking gift I am trying to bestow....but they are like these robots that are programmed to repeat the same lame shit...un-fucking real.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Sure thing, ranger rick.

I understand that you had extensive training in Squirt-Gun Commando tactics?

 

[RandallFlagg]

We are not under the organic constitution that was passed in 1787 and anyone that says differently is a fucking moron. Act of 1871, anyone? The corporate charter that was passed that made us "U.S citizens" instead of sovereigns is what the original constitution was against. Do your fucking homework, leftards. The OP is "dead on" and 100 percent correct, I have posted about this before and loaded it with pertinent information and I am getting fucking tired of constantly repeating myself. Prove that I am wrong or STFU....seriously.

Now, now....be easy on the left....to them the Constitution is a "living, breathing document".

But these people are so fucking stupid, Randall....I mean utterly fucking STUPID and clueless. I should be charging these idiots for the stuff I have spent thousands of hours researching...it's a fucking gift I am trying to bestow....but they are like these robots that are programmed to repeat the same lame shit...un-fucking real.

I understand...but you have to realize that the vast majority of the pseudo-intellectual liberals on this board are little more than useful idiots for their party. History be damned - they are "PROGRESSIVES"!!! Hell, I have a worthless degree in communications and I can debate their asses under the table. Or - as my Dear old Grandmother used to say about idiots - "Well, bless their little hearts" - which was code for - You Dumbass. Every time she saw a hippie - she would utter that phrase.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Same as you, randall.

The sovereign nonsense gets old.

We are not going backwards, ever.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Same as you, randall.

The sovereign nonsense gets old.

We are not going backwards, ever.

So then tell me Jake - if we don't honor the past, and obey the laws of the Founders, do we count on the progressive liberals to lead us down that "primrose path"? If that be the case - we are finished as a country and are merely spinning our wheels - waiting on the tyrant to arrive. That person is so damned close right now, I can feel his/her breath on the back of my neck.

The thing that keeps me awake at night is that I can't help but believe that liberals are looking forward to that day; just as the German people were conned into buying the Nazi dream - I see that same thing happening here. And I pray to the Almighty that I'm wrong - but we both know that I'm not.

 

[TexM3]

Same as you, randall.

The sovereign nonsense gets old.

We are not going backwards, ever.

Trying to put the restraints back on the fed gov and restore the Constitution is not going backwards duffus.

 

[P@triot]

For the uniformed..... "constitutional" is whatever the supreme court says it is.

even when it's as stupid a decision as citizen's united or heller.

but i love when people who get their "constitutional" education from the rightwing blogosphere pretend they know what "constitutional" is.

Oh my dear, dear Jillian. As usual, you could not be more wrong. I think we both know I've forgotten more about the U.S. Constitution than any 'blogosphere" and about 99.999% of the attorney's walking around out there. Though if it eases your psyche to pretend otherwise, I'll go with it dear friend.

The Constitution says what it says. Pretending that person A reads one thing while person B reads another and that requires governing body C (i.e. the Supreme Court) to decide is just typical liberal desperation. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is as straight forward, simple, and clear as it gets. Every single person on this earth knows exactly what it means. Sadly, the irrational liberals hatred of liberty and rights causes them to pretend like there is some confusion around so that they can attempt to circumvent the Constitution. Liberals hate that they can't impose their will on others and since they can't get the votes to legally amend the Constitution, their approach is to feign misunderstanding, stack the Supreme Court with political activists posing as "justices" and hope that 9 unelected officials serve as an oligarchy to override the will of the people.

No where in the U.S. Constitution does it grant any governing body the power to decide what the Constitution itself means. If there were some ambiguity around the Constitution which required as much, then rather than grant power over it, the framers would have simply rewritten it to clarify what ever was ambiguous. How long have you bee an attorney Jillian? Would you ever - under any circumstances - intentionally leave a section of a legal document ambiguous with the realization that the courts could later decide what it meant? Be honest for once. Of course not. And that alone proves what an asinine argument you're attempting to make.