What the TEA Parties Want...

[geauxtohell]

1 Protect the Constitution

Let's start here.

What the hell does this mean?

Ready?

Go!

Duh.

It means we need to place the Consitution in a condom.

LMAO!

I mean, seriously, though.

Teabaggers to America:

"Okay, here are our demands. We are going to start off with some vague, feel-good language that no two Americans will ever fully agree on. Now you can't say we aren't offering up solutions!"

 

[geauxtohell]

Let's start here.

What the hell does this mean?

Ready?

Go!

Here's a few for starters:

- Not mangling the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something against their wills.

- Not destroying the 2nd Amendment with inane gun control laws based upon cosmetics.

- Not allowing the Feds to put unfunded mandates upon the States.

According to whom? This is the problem with the whole "I claim fiat on what the Constitution really means!" line of thought.

If there was a 100% consensus on what the constitution truly said, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court, now would we?

It's completely fucking lame, and so is anyone that buys into it.

They might as well started off with this:

1. Chocolate ice cream for all.

I mean, at least that is somewhat quantifiable for crying out loud.

 

[boedicca]

It's written in English.

Try reading it some time.

 

[Rick]

Ok, that's what you want. HOW do you get it?

 

[geauxtohell]

It's written in English.

Try reading it some time.

I'll take that lame retort to mean that, deep down inside, you know I am right.

Teabagger demand #2:

2.) Bubble-gum for everyone!

 

[Samson]

Let's start here.

What the hell does this mean?

Ready?

Go!

Here's a few for starters:

- Not mangling the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something against their wills.

- Not destroying the 2nd Amendment with inane gun control laws based upon cosmetics.

- Not allowing the Feds to put unfunded mandates upon the States.

According to whom? This is the problem with the whole "I claim fiat on what the Constitution really means!" line of thought.

If there was a 100% consensus on what the constitution truly said, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court, now would we?

I interpret "protect the constitution" it to mean the textualist and strict constructionist approach to judicial (Supreme Court) application.

 

[geauxtohell]

I interpret "protect the constitution" it to mean the textualist and strict constructionist approach to judicial (Supreme Court) application.

Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of their role as is laid out in the constitution.

And so it goes.

 

[Foxfyre]

I interpret "protect the constitution" it to mean the textualist and strict constructionist approach to judicial (Supreme Court) application.

Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of their role as is laid out in the constitution.

And so it goes.

Is it your opinion that everyone on the Supreme Court disagrees with his interpretation?

 

[Samson]

I interpret "protect the constitution" it to mean the textualist and strict constructionist approach to judicial (Supreme Court) application.

Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of their role as is laid out in the constitution.

And so it goes.

They do?

Are you saying no textualist and strict constructionist are on, or could be appointed to, the Supreme Court?


How do you know?

 

[geauxtohell]

I interpret "protect the constitution" it to mean the textualist and strict constructionist approach to judicial (Supreme Court) application.

Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of their role as is laid out in the constitution.

And so it goes.

Is it your opinion that everyone on the Supreme Court disagrees with his interpretation?

No, it would be John Marshall's opinion.

You know, the whole judicial review thing?

 

[Samson]

Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of their role as is laid out in the constitution.

And so it goes.

Is it your opinion that everyone on the Supreme Court disagrees with his interpretation?

No, it would be John Marshall's opinion.

You know, the whole judicial review thing?

John Marshall is One Judge

You know, the eight other judges thing?

 

[geauxtohell]

I interpret "protect the constitution" it to mean the textualist and strict constructionist approach to judicial (Supreme Court) application.

Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of their role as is laid out in the constitution.

And so it goes.

They do?

Are you saying no textualist and strict constructionist are on, or could be appointed to, the Supreme Court?


How do you know?

What does it mean to be a textualist and strict constructionist?

As I pointed out, the power of judicial review isn't explicitly stated in the constitution. The Supreme Court granted it to itself in a legal case.

I have no problem with it, as I see the need for a final say of the laws of the land, but it isn't the exact role the founders had for the court when they wrote the document.

Another good example: the second amendment. What defines the right to "bare arms"? What is an arm? What was the intent? To allow the citizenry to be adequately weaponized to stand up to the federal government?

If that was the intent, we are far from it.

 

[boedicca]

It's written in English.

Try reading it some time.

I'll take that lame retort to mean that, deep down inside, you know I am right.

Teabagger demand #2:

2.) Bubble-gum for everyone!

It's quite apparent that you have neither read The Constitution nor developed any comprehension and appreciation for it.

The Tea Party Movement is explicitly against the pork and entitlements about which you and your Progressive Thugs whinge.

If you think the Founders drafted The Constitution so that people could vote for the government to provide them goods, then you need to quit your OCD fixation with male genitalia and get an education.

 

[geauxtohell]

Is it your opinion that everyone on the Supreme Court disagrees with his interpretation?

No, it would be John Marshall's opinion.

You know, the whole judicial review thing?

John Marshall is One Judge

You know, the eight other judges thing?

Yeah, I know. Marshall wrote the opinion.

Are you not familiar with Marbury v. Madison?

It's one of the most significant legal decisions (if not the most) in the history of this country.

Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[geauxtohell]

It's quite apparent that you have neither read The Constitution nor any comprehension and appreciation for it.

The Tea Party Movement is explicitly against the pork and entitlements about which you and your Progressive Thugs whinge.

It's quite apparent that you teabaggers are completely full of shit and have no actual, workable, proposals for this country.

So instead, you've made a bunch of vague, feel-good statements that really mean nothing.

If you think the Founders drafted The Constitution so that people could vote for the government to provide them goods, then you need to quit your OCD fixation with male genitalia and get an education.

What in the hell are you talking about?

 

[boedicca]

It's quite apparent that you teabaggers

You have a sick obsession - you're like a Tourette's patient with OCD.

Get help.

Or go to a website where you can find a guy willing to shove his sweaty scrotum in your mouth.

 

[Samson]

Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of their role as is laid out in the constitution.

And so it goes.

They do?

Are you saying no textualist and strict constructionist are on, or could be appointed to, the Supreme Court?


How do you know?

What does it mean to be a textualist and strict constructionist?

They are theories that explain how the judiciary should interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents and legislation.

For example Antonin Scalia is a textualist, who applies literal interpretations of the Constitution (within context).

 

[Samson]

It's quite apparent that you teabaggers

You have a sick obsession - you're like a Tourette's patient with OCD.

Get help.

Or go to a website where you can find a guy willing to shove his sweaty scrotum in your mouth.

They have websites like that?

How do you know?

 

[boedicca]

A person can find pretty much anything on the internet these days, Sammy. After all, where do you find Octo pr0n?

 

[geauxtohell]

It's quite apparent that you teabaggers

You have a sick obsession - you're like a Tourette's patient with OCD.

Get help.

Or go to a website where you can find a guy willing to shove his sweaty scrotum in your mouth.

Oh, I see. You are another teabagger that can't stand the term "teabagger".

Hey, don't hate. You guys came up with it first.

Have fun teabagging congress!