What Boehner and the Tea Party Don't Seem to Understand About the Constitution

:confused:

Maybe you didn't know that I'm a liberal. ;)
Nope. Didn't know that.
I don't judge people by the "R" or "D".
It's what they say, and do, that tells me what I need to know.

Your statement was a valid one. :)
It wasn't something I'd hear or see a 'typical online liberal' say.

'Typical online liberals' believe they can squeeze out of the constitution anything they'd like, as long as they can spin it fast enough. Same thing for most RINO's and "social cons".



Yep, that's right.

Maybe I should've marked part of my 1st reponse with "sarcasm". :redface:


Are you perhaps referring to the differences of opinion on narrow v. broad interpretation strategies, or maybe the differences of opinion over the balance of power between the Federal government and the States and the comparative meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments? There have been several swings on those issues with the various amendments, particularly in the second half of the 19th Century - for fairly obvious reasons.
Well, a little bit of all of that actually.

Those who interpret "wide" and think the government has all encompassing power over states, tend to be progressives, IMO.

Well, I only use "liberal" as message board shorthand for team identification purposes. It's always more complicated than that. ;)
:clap2: :lol:


But that's beside the point I suppose. I'm still not quite clear on the definition of a RINO, different people seem to use it to mean different things. But I'd agree that some progressives, some groups that are often thought of as conservative but aren't like the neocons, and the social cons have a definite authoritarian outlook when it comes to social "engineering" as some phrase it and constitutional interpretation. Others in both camps have a more libertarian (small-l) approach. Sounds from what you're saying here that we both fit in the latter category, even if we probably disagree on a whole host of other stuff.

Yep. I typicaly identify along a more libertarian/conservative line.
When using the term "RINO", I should also use the term "DINO", as they both are the same thing, in my eyes. It is basically someone who calls themself a Republican or Democrat (respectively), but yet always votes with, or stands up for, the "other side of the aisle" and embraces their policies, agenda, and what-not. Granted, I don't mind someone changing their minds, but, if one identifies themselves as one thing, and then does everything opposite of that identifier...It just makes no sense to me. Seems like they have no "spine", ya know?


IMO, there are real questions surrounding the meaning and application of the 9th and 10th that have never really been answered. The 14th's first section renders some of those questions moot, but certainly not all of them. Then there are the questions over the exact meaning and application of Section 1 of the 14th and how it changes (or affirms) the Federal government as prime sovereign and to what extent - especially when taken with some of the other late-19th Century amendments and the (often dreadful) applications of the 14th and other provisions in their historical context, which is no longer our reality but with which we have to work anyway. All interesting and fundamental questions.
Indeed.

So much has been done, since the document was laid down, it's amazing to think of what our government must have looked like, unmolested, back before anything had been done to render certain parts of the doc useless or more powerful than they should've been.


I like balance, and I usually read as a nonoriginalist pragmatist which is a pretty middle of the road position on interpretation. Although I've been known to play a mean game of Devil's Advocate from time to time. :eusa_whistle:

I love doing the "devil's advocate" thing too.
This isn't mean to be a plug by any means at all but...I like the practice of playing that role so much that, at my place, I have a forum dedicated to "critical thinking". I've seen it done on other forums, and, if not careful, it can blow up the joint. But, if those participating understand that it can help us all if we explore certain subject-matter to the "edge of the envelope"...It can open up new lines of thought. :cool:

Some folks are just adverse to that kind of thing though.


I do believe the Feds need to be primary, the States secondary sovereigns but not powerless, and I don't disregard as many (especially a certain breed of States Righters) do the role of the 9th, its interaction with the 10th and the unenumerated powers reserved to the people as part of the balance.
I am a "Federalist" at heart myself.

In my view, I can understand arguments presented by anti-federalists, but...Considering where we are today, under the "arrangement" we have now, (federal primary, states secondary)....I cannot imagine how chaotic it might be with a "loosely nit" group of states, all equally powerful to each other, and also the primary, to the federal's secondary.


So to me anyway what's most important if I had to pick just one issue? Individual civil liberties. These must be safeguarded, preserved to and for the people and read as broadly as possible as they apply to individuals in order to ensure the people's place in the mix. That means safeguarding them from the States as well as the Feds, which is where Federal supremacy is key to maintaining not only the obvious cohesion but relative uniformity and balance as the dog bigger than the States and to whom the States must accede. It's then also easier to keep an eye on that one big dog than the fifty smaller ones.
Agreed.

Iowa has been going through it's own "hell" when it comes to civil liberties, in recent months.


Long answer to a short observation/question/comment I suppose. But that's a fairly detailed and nuanced POV and not one most people would take the time to write a novel about an a message board or expect people to read. :lol: But if you ask ten different people on any one "side" for something similar, you're going to get either nine or ten different answers. I simply dislike the broadbrushing that happens in these places. Just because two people are liberal, or two people are conservative, it doesn't mean they think alike.

No browbeating intended with that last. Just one of my little pet issues. ;)
No no...I completely understand.

I don't like broad-brushing either, and am usually quick to point it out.
My faux pas earlier was in haste, and I do apologize ;)
 
To be sure, the powers of the federal government under our Constitution are not unlimited -- the Constitution establishes a central government of enumerated powers, and our States play a vital role in our federalist system -- but the powers our charter does grant to the federal government are broad and substantial. And, since the Founding, the American people have amended the Constitution to ensure that Congress has all the tools it needs to address national problems and protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. Eight separate amendments expanded the enumerated powers of the federal government, giving vast powers to the government to protect equality, civil rights, and voting rights, and to raise funds through taxes on income. Many Tea Partiers disdain these Amendments -- or even want to repeal them -- but they are just as much a part of the Constitution as the language written in 1787. When the new members of Congress are sworn in this week, they will swear to uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts written in the 18th century.




:clap2:

Very well said. You realize then that the Supreme Authority is not the Court, but the will of the People, that the Whole construct of the Federal Authority, is by Us, for Us, and We have the final word, even if it be by Amendment or Convention. That's a start. There is hope for you. Let us battle Tranny and Injustice together Brother. Hop on board. ;) :lol:

Let's start with Election Reform. One Citizen, of age, one Vote. I. D. Required. Felony for Voter Fraud or Election Tampering. NYC just came up with a new Ballot, it has issues, yet there is promise there, and Accountability. It's a start. State Conventions have issues with Voter fraud too. Maybe we need a Law to stop people from voting in more than one State Primary per Election Cycle. The ACORN's need to be shut down, Fined, and forced to pay restitution for the Messes they create at Voters expense. Let's start there huh? What do you say?:eusa_whistle:

I say voting should be mandatory like Jury Duty.
 
To be sure, the powers of the federal government under our Constitution are not unlimited -- the Constitution establishes a central government of enumerated powers, and our States play a vital role in our federalist system -- but the powers our charter does grant to the federal government are broad and substantial. And, since the Founding, the American people have amended the Constitution to ensure that Congress has all the tools it needs to address national problems and protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. Eight separate amendments expanded the enumerated powers of the federal government, giving vast powers to the government to protect equality, civil rights, and voting rights, and to raise funds through taxes on income. Many Tea Partiers disdain these Amendments -- or even want to repeal them -- but they are just as much a part of the Constitution as the language written in 1787. When the new members of Congress are sworn in this week, they will swear to uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts written in the 18th century.




:clap2:

Very well said. You realize then that the Supreme Authority is not the Court, but the will of the People, that the Whole construct of the Federal Authority, is by Us, for Us, and We have the final word, even if it be by Amendment or Convention. That's a start. There is hope for you. Let us battle Tranny and Injustice together Brother. Hop on board. ;) :lol:

Let's start with Election Reform. One Citizen, of age, one Vote. I. D. Required. Felony for Voter Fraud or Election Tampering. NYC just came up with a new Ballot, it has issues, yet there is promise there, and Accountability. It's a start. State Conventions have issues with Voter fraud too. Maybe we need a Law to stop people from voting in more than one State Primary per Election Cycle. The ACORN's need to be shut down, Fined, and forced to pay restitution for the Messes they create at Voters expense. Let's start there huh? What do you say?:eusa_whistle:

I say voting should be mandatory like Jury Duty.

Yeah let's force people to exercise their freedoms.
 
Elizabeth B. Wydra: What Boehner and the Tea Party Don't Seem to Understand About the Constitution

"This is because, as renowned constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar recently told the Washington Post, when you "actually read the Constitution as a whole, it doesn't say what the tea party folks think it says." In fact, the Constitution as a whole is a remarkably progressive document"
Since when do howling Marxist moonbats like you and the freak show over at HRPuffinstuffPo give a hoot in hell about the constitution to begin with, let alone anyone else's reputed "misunderstanding" of it?
Not only that, but the piece is crap on its face. They've made up a strawman (what the Tea Party believes) and argued it.

But, their readership is not the brightest bunch in the least.
 

Forum List

Back
Top