When Democrats Infest The Judiciary....

[PoliticalChic]

People disagree with Supreme Court decisions all the time. Right now, several states are challenging the decision on Roe Vs. Wade. Are they unpatriotic, or traitorous?

Heller struck down laws that were on the books for decades. McDonald did too. We see Conservatives celebrate these successful challenges. We see many of the same Conservatives snarl and gnash their teeth at the various rulings that they hate.

How many times have politicians on the right and left immediately rushed out and rewritten a law that was struck down, so it complies with the Supreme Court decision striking down a similar law?

If you wonder why that is, it is because nobody views the Constitution properly. Not the right, nor the left. Many on the right detest the various decisions upholding the prohibitions on how suspects and prisoners are treated. Many on the Left are just as contemptuous of decisions failing to uphold similar prohibitions.

The Bill of Rights enumerated the Inalienable Rights. The rights provided by God, the Universe, Natural Law, or the Great Pumpkin if you wish. Rights that exist for Man that no other man may affect. The basis for that is the idea that all rights for British Citizens are derived from the Crown. The founders of this nation believed those rights existed long before the Crown got involved.

So the Bill of Rights was written as the Ten Commandments. Thou Shall Not. Just as there is no legal definition for Thou Shall Not Covet your Neigbors...... Just as there is no exact definition of Honor thy Father and Mother. You know what it is, and you know when you are doing what you aren’t supposed to.

The Bill of Rights was written the same. It doesn’t say The Supreme Court shall strike down as invalid any law passed by Congress.....

Nah. I hear you on info and concerns, but the political left overwhelmingly hates natural and constitutional law and the rights thereof, not the political right.

Both sides have an irrational hatred of parts of the Constitution. The left hates the Second Amendment, and is not as faithful to the First as they want to believe. The Right hates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. Yet the Right which can discuss the intent and history of the Second like Constitutional Scholars refuses to even consider the reasons behind the 4th Amendment. They shout that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

I am sure the British said much the same thing as they strive to stomp out the Treasonous Rebellion in the big dust up.

Both the Left and Right think the Constitution is an obstacle to get around, or over. They do not understand that like religious texts you have to take it all into your heart, not just the parts that appear to justify what you want to do.

If the “Strict Constitutionalists” of the right believed in viewing the document as a guide, they would be up front and screaming the loudest when police misconduct was exposed. The truth is that the Constitution was always intended to protect the individual from the abuse of Government.

In many was it is like taxes. The Government needs to take as much as is required to do what it must. The problem is raised when it is not enough to do what it wants. The founders imagined a future where you and your fellow citizens held the elected and theoretically most powerful people in Government to account. You would fire them for doing what they were not supposed to do. You don’t. They don’t. Neither the left nor the right do it. We have stopped evolving at the point of the big Homecoming Game. Our team is awesome. We are red. Their team sucks. They are blue. On the other side of the stadium, they are shouting the same thing, only with blue being superior.

Issues and Principles have taken a back seat to brand loyalty. It is Ford vs. Chevy. Toyota versus Nissan. Neither side is right. Both are wrong. And when you get someone to admit his side is wrong about an issue, they point and scream that the other side is a lot more wrong on a lot of other issues.

The short version. Our side sucks, your side sucks way more.

Let’s take another issue. The Justice Department investigations into police departments. If the purpose of the Federal Government and elected officials is to defend the Constitution, and the rights of the citizens. Why stop those investigations? Why not treat them like an audit, to see where you can be doing a better job. Often we are too close to an action to see the big picture. Or the individuals doing it are ignorant that they are doing it wrong. Or they are knowingly violating the Constitution out of meanness and spite. It doesn’t matter, what matters is stopping it.

Many people blame Obama, but those investigations happened under Bush too. The right cheered the end of those investigations. Why? It was obvious they were uncovering Constitutional violations. In the case of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department more than a hundred violations in their policies and practices. Things they were doing every day.

How many people’s rights are going to be violated today? How many were violated yesterday? One, a thousand? Several Thousand? One is too many. One person deprived of their Second Amendment Rights is too many. One deprived of any right is too many. It is our job as Voters to demand this of our politicians. It is our job as citizens to say no when we see or hear of it. Yet how many excuse it? Or find a way to get over, or around, or put a door called an exception that the wall of the right is supposed to represent?

Yes. The left and right are both awful where the Constitution is discussed. Neither side accepts the restrictions.

"To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. "



Pllleeeeeeezzzzzz!!!!


"THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT"

Interesting how every time someone points out an action is Unconstitutional someone screams that tired and worn out lie. The left shouts it whenever the Second Amendment is brought up. The founders could not imagine modern firearms. And even if they did the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The Constitution has a mechanism in place to allow for changing circumstances. It is called an Amendment. If a change is desired, say the abolition of Slavery, or the end of the gender segregation through suffrage. The process is an amendment. Not a redefinition of terms or a worn out old lie.
Because the question is not if the Constitution is a suicide pact. It is what rights will we be left with once we except ourselves into irrelevant peasants serving our lords and masters.

"The founders could not imagine modern" blah blah blah.......


"Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”



Clearly, you're not well-read.

If you ever decided to begin reading....start here:

 

[SavannahMann]

People disagree with Supreme Court decisions all the time. Right now, several states are challenging the decision on Roe Vs. Wade. Are they unpatriotic, or traitorous?

Heller struck down laws that were on the books for decades. McDonald did too. We see Conservatives celebrate these successful challenges. We see many of the same Conservatives snarl and gnash their teeth at the various rulings that they hate.

How many times have politicians on the right and left immediately rushed out and rewritten a law that was struck down, so it complies with the Supreme Court decision striking down a similar law?

If you wonder why that is, it is because nobody views the Constitution properly. Not the right, nor the left. Many on the right detest the various decisions upholding the prohibitions on how suspects and prisoners are treated. Many on the Left are just as contemptuous of decisions failing to uphold similar prohibitions.

The Bill of Rights enumerated the Inalienable Rights. The rights provided by God, the Universe, Natural Law, or the Great Pumpkin if you wish. Rights that exist for Man that no other man may affect. The basis for that is the idea that all rights for British Citizens are derived from the Crown. The founders of this nation believed those rights existed long before the Crown got involved.

So the Bill of Rights was written as the Ten Commandments. Thou Shall Not. Just as there is no legal definition for Thou Shall Not Covet your Neigbors...... Just as there is no exact definition of Honor thy Father and Mother. You know what it is, and you know when you are doing what you aren’t supposed to.

The Bill of Rights was written the same. It doesn’t say The Supreme Court shall strike down as invalid any law passed by Congress.....

Nah. I hear you on info and concerns, but the political left overwhelmingly hates natural and constitutional law and the rights thereof, not the political right.

Both sides have an irrational hatred of parts of the Constitution. The left hates the Second Amendment, and is not as faithful to the First as they want to believe. The Right hates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. Yet the Right which can discuss the intent and history of the Second like Constitutional Scholars refuses to even consider the reasons behind the 4th Amendment. They shout that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

I am sure the British said much the same thing as they strive to stomp out the Treasonous Rebellion in the big dust up.

Both the Left and Right think the Constitution is an obstacle to get around, or over. They do not understand that like religious texts you have to take it all into your heart, not just the parts that appear to justify what you want to do.

If the “Strict Constitutionalists” of the right believed in viewing the document as a guide, they would be up front and screaming the loudest when police misconduct was exposed. The truth is that the Constitution was always intended to protect the individual from the abuse of Government.

In many was it is like taxes. The Government needs to take as much as is required to do what it must. The problem is raised when it is not enough to do what it wants. The founders imagined a future where you and your fellow citizens held the elected and theoretically most powerful people in Government to account. You would fire them for doing what they were not supposed to do. You don’t. They don’t. Neither the left nor the right do it. We have stopped evolving at the point of the big Homecoming Game. Our team is awesome. We are red. Their team sucks. They are blue. On the other side of the stadium, they are shouting the same thing, only with blue being superior.

Issues and Principles have taken a back seat to brand loyalty. It is Ford vs. Chevy. Toyota versus Nissan. Neither side is right. Both are wrong. And when you get someone to admit his side is wrong about an issue, they point and scream that the other side is a lot more wrong on a lot of other issues.

The short version. Our side sucks, your side sucks way more.

Let’s take another issue. The Justice Department investigations into police departments. If the purpose of the Federal Government and elected officials is to defend the Constitution, and the rights of the citizens. Why stop those investigations? Why not treat them like an audit, to see where you can be doing a better job. Often we are too close to an action to see the big picture. Or the individuals doing it are ignorant that they are doing it wrong. Or they are knowingly violating the Constitution out of meanness and spite. It doesn’t matter, what matters is stopping it.

Many people blame Obama, but those investigations happened under Bush too. The right cheered the end of those investigations. Why? It was obvious they were uncovering Constitutional violations. In the case of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department more than a hundred violations in their policies and practices. Things they were doing every day.

How many people’s rights are going to be violated today? How many were violated yesterday? One, a thousand? Several Thousand? One is too many. One person deprived of their Second Amendment Rights is too many. One deprived of any right is too many. It is our job as Voters to demand this of our politicians. It is our job as citizens to say no when we see or hear of it. Yet how many excuse it? Or find a way to get over, or around, or put a door called an exception that the wall of the right is supposed to represent?

Yes. The left and right are both awful where the Constitution is discussed. Neither side accepts the restrictions.

"To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. "



Pllleeeeeeezzzzzz!!!!


"THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT"

Interesting how every time someone points out an action is Unconstitutional someone screams that tired and worn out lie. The left shouts it whenever the Second Amendment is brought up. The founders could not imagine modern firearms. And even if they did the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The Constitution has a mechanism in place to allow for changing circumstances. It is called an Amendment. If a change is desired, say the abolition of Slavery, or the end of the gender segregation through suffrage. The process is an amendment. Not a redefinition of terms or a worn out old lie.
Because the question is not if the Constitution is a suicide pact. It is what rights will we be left with once we except ourselves into irrelevant peasants serving our lords and masters.

"The founders could not imagine modern" blah blah blah.......


"Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”



Clearly, you're not well-read.

If you ever decided to begin reading....start here:

If you want to argue with me, stop making my point. My point, clearly stated, was that it was wrong to find exceptions to the Amendments, exceptions flourish as you may well know. Each exception was the foundation for the next.

These exceptions are not Constitutional. They are violations of the clearly stated principles the Founders hoped to enshrine in the Constitution. I used Stop and Frisk as one example. A clear violation of the 4th Amendment. Your response, the Constitution was not a Suicide Pact. No it isn’t. It is the foundation, the clearly stated principles of our nation. The statement of rights guaranteed not by man, but by our Creator, or if you are not a believer, by Natural Selection, The Universe, or the spirit of our ancestors. These rights, are not something that are to be granted, or given away by men or women, in power. They are to be defended at every turn, in every example of abuse, or violation.

Let’s take another exception. The infamous Katz case. In it, the Supreme’s created a whole new standard. The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. So the Police would not need a warrant if you could not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Odd isn’t it, that we have gone from a clearly stated principle, secure in their person and papers from unreasonable search and seizure, to another exception. That exception in Katz was used as a foundation in other cases, where again you had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Consider all the documents that your Bank requires for you to open an account. Drivers License, documents to prove your employment and address. All so you can deposit and withdraw money. Why? The Court ruled that if you voluntarily surrendered this information to your bank, you had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Congress immediately jumped on the bandwagon, and required banks to require even more information from you.

The same of Cell Phones. To protect you, Congress mandated that your phone be equipped with a GPS chip to determine your location in case you dialed 911. What if you were unable to give your location? This could save lives. Ten seconds after it went into effect, you of course had no reasonable expectation of privacy for a phone you voluntarily sign up for, providing more documentation of who you are, and carry with you. So why would the Police need a warrant to track a phone you are carrying of your own free will knowing that it can and does track you?

The foundation of the abomination is an exception. That was never the way we were supposed to handle the question of the Amendments. If we didn’t like them, we were supposed to amend the amendment.

Every abuse we are suffering daily, is drawn by violating the principles once enshrined, now entombed in the Constitution. The foundation of our nation is now riddled with so many exceptions, it means literally nothing.

We were supposed to say No when these came up, but we said yes, because being petty and idiotic, we wanted to make sure that bad guy didn’t get away with it. Now, we are all suffering the loss of our rights, tracked daily, our emails read by anyone who wants to. Our conversations listened to. Where we do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, we have an even looser standard that kicks in. National Security. The Suicide Pact you fretted about above. The Government can do anything so long as it can claim with a straight face that it is fighting Terrorism, and if Terrorism doesn’t generate enough of a knee jerk response of approval, they’ll throw in drug dealers, or even Child molesters. Thus setting the stage that anyone who opposes this is obviously a horrible person who would allow Child Molesters to continue abusing children. Perverts.

The principles outlined in the Constitution, and explained in detail in the Federalist Papers, are gone. History. Those words are meaningless now. And you can’t pretend that supporting that is anything approaching conservative.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nah. I hear you on info and concerns, but the political left overwhelmingly hates natural and constitutional law and the rights thereof, not the political right.

Both sides have an irrational hatred of parts of the Constitution. The left hates the Second Amendment, and is not as faithful to the First as they want to believe. The Right hates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. Yet the Right which can discuss the intent and history of the Second like Constitutional Scholars refuses to even consider the reasons behind the 4th Amendment. They shout that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

I am sure the British said much the same thing as they strive to stomp out the Treasonous Rebellion in the big dust up.

Both the Left and Right think the Constitution is an obstacle to get around, or over. They do not understand that like religious texts you have to take it all into your heart, not just the parts that appear to justify what you want to do.

If the “Strict Constitutionalists” of the right believed in viewing the document as a guide, they would be up front and screaming the loudest when police misconduct was exposed. The truth is that the Constitution was always intended to protect the individual from the abuse of Government.

In many was it is like taxes. The Government needs to take as much as is required to do what it must. The problem is raised when it is not enough to do what it wants. The founders imagined a future where you and your fellow citizens held the elected and theoretically most powerful people in Government to account. You would fire them for doing what they were not supposed to do. You don’t. They don’t. Neither the left nor the right do it. We have stopped evolving at the point of the big Homecoming Game. Our team is awesome. We are red. Their team sucks. They are blue. On the other side of the stadium, they are shouting the same thing, only with blue being superior.

Issues and Principles have taken a back seat to brand loyalty. It is Ford vs. Chevy. Toyota versus Nissan. Neither side is right. Both are wrong. And when you get someone to admit his side is wrong about an issue, they point and scream that the other side is a lot more wrong on a lot of other issues.

The short version. Our side sucks, your side sucks way more.

Let’s take another issue. The Justice Department investigations into police departments. If the purpose of the Federal Government and elected officials is to defend the Constitution, and the rights of the citizens. Why stop those investigations? Why not treat them like an audit, to see where you can be doing a better job. Often we are too close to an action to see the big picture. Or the individuals doing it are ignorant that they are doing it wrong. Or they are knowingly violating the Constitution out of meanness and spite. It doesn’t matter, what matters is stopping it.

Many people blame Obama, but those investigations happened under Bush too. The right cheered the end of those investigations. Why? It was obvious they were uncovering Constitutional violations. In the case of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department more than a hundred violations in their policies and practices. Things they were doing every day.

How many people’s rights are going to be violated today? How many were violated yesterday? One, a thousand? Several Thousand? One is too many. One person deprived of their Second Amendment Rights is too many. One deprived of any right is too many. It is our job as Voters to demand this of our politicians. It is our job as citizens to say no when we see or hear of it. Yet how many excuse it? Or find a way to get over, or around, or put a door called an exception that the wall of the right is supposed to represent?

Yes. The left and right are both awful where the Constitution is discussed. Neither side accepts the restrictions.

"To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. "



Pllleeeeeeezzzzzz!!!!


"THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT"

Interesting how every time someone points out an action is Unconstitutional someone screams that tired and worn out lie. The left shouts it whenever the Second Amendment is brought up. The founders could not imagine modern firearms. And even if they did the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The Constitution has a mechanism in place to allow for changing circumstances. It is called an Amendment. If a change is desired, say the abolition of Slavery, or the end of the gender segregation through suffrage. The process is an amendment. Not a redefinition of terms or a worn out old lie.
Because the question is not if the Constitution is a suicide pact. It is what rights will we be left with once we except ourselves into irrelevant peasants serving our lords and masters.

"The founders could not imagine modern" blah blah blah.......


"Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”



Clearly, you're not well-read.

If you ever decided to begin reading....start here:

If you want to argue with me, stop making my point. My point, clearly stated, was that it was wrong to find exceptions to the Amendments, exceptions flourish as you may well know. Each exception was the foundation for the next.

These exceptions are not Constitutional. They are violations of the clearly stated principles the Founders hoped to enshrine in the Constitution. I used Stop and Frisk as one example. A clear violation of the 4th Amendment. Your response, the Constitution was not a Suicide Pact. No it isn’t. It is the foundation, the clearly stated principles of our nation. The statement of rights guaranteed not by man, but by our Creator, or if you are not a believer, by Natural Selection, The Universe, or the spirit of our ancestors. These rights, are not something that are to be granted, or given away by men or women, in power. They are to be defended at every turn, in every example of abuse, or violation.

Let’s take another exception. The infamous Katz case. In it, the Supreme’s created a whole new standard. The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. So the Police would not need a warrant if you could not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Odd isn’t it, that we have gone from a clearly stated principle, secure in their person and papers from unreasonable search and seizure, to another exception. That exception in Katz was used as a foundation in other cases, where again you had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Consider all the documents that your Bank requires for you to open an account. Drivers License, documents to prove your employment and address. All so you can deposit and withdraw money. Why? The Court ruled that if you voluntarily surrendered this information to your bank, you had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Congress immediately jumped on the bandwagon, and required banks to require even more information from you.

The same of Cell Phones. To protect you, Congress mandated that your phone be equipped with a GPS chip to determine your location in case you dialed 911. What if you were unable to give your location? This could save lives. Ten seconds after it went into effect, you of course had no reasonable expectation of privacy for a phone you voluntarily sign up for, providing more documentation of who you are, and carry with you. So why would the Police need a warrant to track a phone you are carrying of your own free will knowing that it can and does track you?

The foundation of the abomination is an exception. That was never the way we were supposed to handle the question of the Amendments. If we didn’t like them, we were supposed to amend the amendment.

Every abuse we are suffering daily, is drawn by violating the principles once enshrined, now entombed in the Constitution. The foundation of our nation is now riddled with so many exceptions, it means literally nothing.

We were supposed to say No when these came up, but we said yes, because being petty and idiotic, we wanted to make sure that bad guy didn’t get away with it. Now, we are all suffering the loss of our rights, tracked daily, our emails read by anyone who wants to. Our conversations listened to. Where we do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, we have an even looser standard that kicks in. National Security. The Suicide Pact you fretted about above. The Government can do anything so long as it can claim with a straight face that it is fighting Terrorism, and if Terrorism doesn’t generate enough of a knee jerk response of approval, they’ll throw in drug dealers, or even Child molesters. Thus setting the stage that anyone who opposes this is obviously a horrible person who would allow Child Molesters to continue abusing children. Perverts.

The principles outlined in the Constitution, and explained in detail in the Federalist Papers, are gone. History. Those words are meaningless now. And you can’t pretend that supporting that is anything approaching conservative.

I have no desire to argue with you....just hope to educate you.

When you wrote this:
"The founders could not imagine modern" blah blah blah.......


....it exposed your ignorance.

 

[SavannahMann]

Both sides have an irrational hatred of parts of the Constitution. The left hates the Second Amendment, and is not as faithful to the First as they want to believe. The Right hates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. Yet the Right which can discuss the intent and history of the Second like Constitutional Scholars refuses to even consider the reasons behind the 4th Amendment. They shout that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

I am sure the British said much the same thing as they strive to stomp out the Treasonous Rebellion in the big dust up.

Both the Left and Right think the Constitution is an obstacle to get around, or over. They do not understand that like religious texts you have to take it all into your heart, not just the parts that appear to justify what you want to do.

If the “Strict Constitutionalists” of the right believed in viewing the document as a guide, they would be up front and screaming the loudest when police misconduct was exposed. The truth is that the Constitution was always intended to protect the individual from the abuse of Government.

In many was it is like taxes. The Government needs to take as much as is required to do what it must. The problem is raised when it is not enough to do what it wants. The founders imagined a future where you and your fellow citizens held the elected and theoretically most powerful people in Government to account. You would fire them for doing what they were not supposed to do. You don’t. They don’t. Neither the left nor the right do it. We have stopped evolving at the point of the big Homecoming Game. Our team is awesome. We are red. Their team sucks. They are blue. On the other side of the stadium, they are shouting the same thing, only with blue being superior.

Issues and Principles have taken a back seat to brand loyalty. It is Ford vs. Chevy. Toyota versus Nissan. Neither side is right. Both are wrong. And when you get someone to admit his side is wrong about an issue, they point and scream that the other side is a lot more wrong on a lot of other issues.

The short version. Our side sucks, your side sucks way more.

Let’s take another issue. The Justice Department investigations into police departments. If the purpose of the Federal Government and elected officials is to defend the Constitution, and the rights of the citizens. Why stop those investigations? Why not treat them like an audit, to see where you can be doing a better job. Often we are too close to an action to see the big picture. Or the individuals doing it are ignorant that they are doing it wrong. Or they are knowingly violating the Constitution out of meanness and spite. It doesn’t matter, what matters is stopping it.

Many people blame Obama, but those investigations happened under Bush too. The right cheered the end of those investigations. Why? It was obvious they were uncovering Constitutional violations. In the case of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department more than a hundred violations in their policies and practices. Things they were doing every day.

How many people’s rights are going to be violated today? How many were violated yesterday? One, a thousand? Several Thousand? One is too many. One person deprived of their Second Amendment Rights is too many. One deprived of any right is too many. It is our job as Voters to demand this of our politicians. It is our job as citizens to say no when we see or hear of it. Yet how many excuse it? Or find a way to get over, or around, or put a door called an exception that the wall of the right is supposed to represent?

Yes. The left and right are both awful where the Constitution is discussed. Neither side accepts the restrictions.

"To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. "



Pllleeeeeeezzzzzz!!!!


"THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT"

Interesting how every time someone points out an action is Unconstitutional someone screams that tired and worn out lie. The left shouts it whenever the Second Amendment is brought up. The founders could not imagine modern firearms. And even if they did the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The Constitution has a mechanism in place to allow for changing circumstances. It is called an Amendment. If a change is desired, say the abolition of Slavery, or the end of the gender segregation through suffrage. The process is an amendment. Not a redefinition of terms or a worn out old lie.
Because the question is not if the Constitution is a suicide pact. It is what rights will we be left with once we except ourselves into irrelevant peasants serving our lords and masters.

"The founders could not imagine modern" blah blah blah.......


"Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”



Clearly, you're not well-read.

If you ever decided to begin reading....start here:

If you want to argue with me, stop making my point. My point, clearly stated, was that it was wrong to find exceptions to the Amendments, exceptions flourish as you may well know. Each exception was the foundation for the next.

These exceptions are not Constitutional. They are violations of the clearly stated principles the Founders hoped to enshrine in the Constitution. I used Stop and Frisk as one example. A clear violation of the 4th Amendment. Your response, the Constitution was not a Suicide Pact. No it isn’t. It is the foundation, the clearly stated principles of our nation. The statement of rights guaranteed not by man, but by our Creator, or if you are not a believer, by Natural Selection, The Universe, or the spirit of our ancestors. These rights, are not something that are to be granted, or given away by men or women, in power. They are to be defended at every turn, in every example of abuse, or violation.

Let’s take another exception. The infamous Katz case. In it, the Supreme’s created a whole new standard. The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. So the Police would not need a warrant if you could not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Odd isn’t it, that we have gone from a clearly stated principle, secure in their person and papers from unreasonable search and seizure, to another exception. That exception in Katz was used as a foundation in other cases, where again you had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Consider all the documents that your Bank requires for you to open an account. Drivers License, documents to prove your employment and address. All so you can deposit and withdraw money. Why? The Court ruled that if you voluntarily surrendered this information to your bank, you had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Congress immediately jumped on the bandwagon, and required banks to require even more information from you.

The same of Cell Phones. To protect you, Congress mandated that your phone be equipped with a GPS chip to determine your location in case you dialed 911. What if you were unable to give your location? This could save lives. Ten seconds after it went into effect, you of course had no reasonable expectation of privacy for a phone you voluntarily sign up for, providing more documentation of who you are, and carry with you. So why would the Police need a warrant to track a phone you are carrying of your own free will knowing that it can and does track you?

The foundation of the abomination is an exception. That was never the way we were supposed to handle the question of the Amendments. If we didn’t like them, we were supposed to amend the amendment.

Every abuse we are suffering daily, is drawn by violating the principles once enshrined, now entombed in the Constitution. The foundation of our nation is now riddled with so many exceptions, it means literally nothing.

We were supposed to say No when these came up, but we said yes, because being petty and idiotic, we wanted to make sure that bad guy didn’t get away with it. Now, we are all suffering the loss of our rights, tracked daily, our emails read by anyone who wants to. Our conversations listened to. Where we do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, we have an even looser standard that kicks in. National Security. The Suicide Pact you fretted about above. The Government can do anything so long as it can claim with a straight face that it is fighting Terrorism, and if Terrorism doesn’t generate enough of a knee jerk response of approval, they’ll throw in drug dealers, or even Child molesters. Thus setting the stage that anyone who opposes this is obviously a horrible person who would allow Child Molesters to continue abusing children. Perverts.

The principles outlined in the Constitution, and explained in detail in the Federalist Papers, are gone. History. Those words are meaningless now. And you can’t pretend that supporting that is anything approaching conservative.

I have no desire to argue with you....just hope to educate you.

When you wrote this:
"The founders could not imagine modern" blah blah blah.......


....it exposed your ignorance.

The way to end ignorance, and I am talking about yours, is to read. Comprehension can not take place where stupidity reigns.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. "



Pllleeeeeeezzzzzz!!!!


"THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT"

Interesting how every time someone points out an action is Unconstitutional someone screams that tired and worn out lie. The left shouts it whenever the Second Amendment is brought up. The founders could not imagine modern firearms. And even if they did the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The Constitution has a mechanism in place to allow for changing circumstances. It is called an Amendment. If a change is desired, say the abolition of Slavery, or the end of the gender segregation through suffrage. The process is an amendment. Not a redefinition of terms or a worn out old lie.
Because the question is not if the Constitution is a suicide pact. It is what rights will we be left with once we except ourselves into irrelevant peasants serving our lords and masters.

"The founders could not imagine modern" blah blah blah.......


"Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”



Clearly, you're not well-read.

If you ever decided to begin reading....start here:

If you want to argue with me, stop making my point. My point, clearly stated, was that it was wrong to find exceptions to the Amendments, exceptions flourish as you may well know. Each exception was the foundation for the next.

These exceptions are not Constitutional. They are violations of the clearly stated principles the Founders hoped to enshrine in the Constitution. I used Stop and Frisk as one example. A clear violation of the 4th Amendment. Your response, the Constitution was not a Suicide Pact. No it isn’t. It is the foundation, the clearly stated principles of our nation. The statement of rights guaranteed not by man, but by our Creator, or if you are not a believer, by Natural Selection, The Universe, or the spirit of our ancestors. These rights, are not something that are to be granted, or given away by men or women, in power. They are to be defended at every turn, in every example of abuse, or violation.

Let’s take another exception. The infamous Katz case. In it, the Supreme’s created a whole new standard. The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. So the Police would not need a warrant if you could not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Odd isn’t it, that we have gone from a clearly stated principle, secure in their person and papers from unreasonable search and seizure, to another exception. That exception in Katz was used as a foundation in other cases, where again you had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Consider all the documents that your Bank requires for you to open an account. Drivers License, documents to prove your employment and address. All so you can deposit and withdraw money. Why? The Court ruled that if you voluntarily surrendered this information to your bank, you had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Congress immediately jumped on the bandwagon, and required banks to require even more information from you.

The same of Cell Phones. To protect you, Congress mandated that your phone be equipped with a GPS chip to determine your location in case you dialed 911. What if you were unable to give your location? This could save lives. Ten seconds after it went into effect, you of course had no reasonable expectation of privacy for a phone you voluntarily sign up for, providing more documentation of who you are, and carry with you. So why would the Police need a warrant to track a phone you are carrying of your own free will knowing that it can and does track you?

The foundation of the abomination is an exception. That was never the way we were supposed to handle the question of the Amendments. If we didn’t like them, we were supposed to amend the amendment.

Every abuse we are suffering daily, is drawn by violating the principles once enshrined, now entombed in the Constitution. The foundation of our nation is now riddled with so many exceptions, it means literally nothing.

We were supposed to say No when these came up, but we said yes, because being petty and idiotic, we wanted to make sure that bad guy didn’t get away with it. Now, we are all suffering the loss of our rights, tracked daily, our emails read by anyone who wants to. Our conversations listened to. Where we do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, we have an even looser standard that kicks in. National Security. The Suicide Pact you fretted about above. The Government can do anything so long as it can claim with a straight face that it is fighting Terrorism, and if Terrorism doesn’t generate enough of a knee jerk response of approval, they’ll throw in drug dealers, or even Child molesters. Thus setting the stage that anyone who opposes this is obviously a horrible person who would allow Child Molesters to continue abusing children. Perverts.

The principles outlined in the Constitution, and explained in detail in the Federalist Papers, are gone. History. Those words are meaningless now. And you can’t pretend that supporting that is anything approaching conservative.

I have no desire to argue with you....just hope to educate you.

When you wrote this:
"The founders could not imagine modern" blah blah blah.......


....it exposed your ignorance.

The way to end ignorance, and I am talking about yours, is to read. Comprehension can not take place where stupidity reigns.

Be sure to drop back when you start reading.


Begin here:

 

[Ringtone]

"To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. "



Pllleeeeeeezzzzzz!!!!


"THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT"

Interesting how every time someone points out an action is Unconstitutional someone screams that tired and worn out lie. The left shouts it whenever the Second Amendment is brought up. The founders could not imagine modern firearms. And even if they did the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The Constitution has a mechanism in place to allow for changing circumstances. It is called an Amendment. If a change is desired, say the abolition of Slavery, or the end of the gender segregation through suffrage. The process is an amendment. Not a redefinition of terms or a worn out old lie.
Because the question is not if the Constitution is a suicide pact. It is what rights will we be left with once we except ourselves into irrelevant peasants serving our lords and masters.

"The founders could not imagine modern" blah blah blah.......


"Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”



Clearly, you're not well-read.

If you ever decided to begin reading....start here:

If you want to argue with me, stop making my point. My point, clearly stated, was that it was wrong to find exceptions to the Amendments, exceptions flourish as you may well know. Each exception was the foundation for the next.

These exceptions are not Constitutional. They are violations of the clearly stated principles the Founders hoped to enshrine in the Constitution. I used Stop and Frisk as one example. A clear violation of the 4th Amendment. Your response, the Constitution was not a Suicide Pact. No it isn’t. It is the foundation, the clearly stated principles of our nation. The statement of rights guaranteed not by man, but by our Creator, or if you are not a believer, by Natural Selection, The Universe, or the spirit of our ancestors. These rights, are not something that are to be granted, or given away by men or women, in power. They are to be defended at every turn, in every example of abuse, or violation.

Let’s take another exception. The infamous Katz case. In it, the Supreme’s created a whole new standard. The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. So the Police would not need a warrant if you could not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Odd isn’t it, that we have gone from a clearly stated principle, secure in their person and papers from unreasonable search and seizure, to another exception. That exception in Katz was used as a foundation in other cases, where again you had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Consider all the documents that your Bank requires for you to open an account. Drivers License, documents to prove your employment and address. All so you can deposit and withdraw money. Why? The Court ruled that if you voluntarily surrendered this information to your bank, you had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Congress immediately jumped on the bandwagon, and required banks to require even more information from you.

The same of Cell Phones. To protect you, Congress mandated that your phone be equipped with a GPS chip to determine your location in case you dialed 911. What if you were unable to give your location? This could save lives. Ten seconds after it went into effect, you of course had no reasonable expectation of privacy for a phone you voluntarily sign up for, providing more documentation of who you are, and carry with you. So why would the Police need a warrant to track a phone you are carrying of your own free will knowing that it can and does track you?

The foundation of the abomination is an exception. That was never the way we were supposed to handle the question of the Amendments. If we didn’t like them, we were supposed to amend the amendment.

Every abuse we are suffering daily, is drawn by violating the principles once enshrined, now entombed in the Constitution. The foundation of our nation is now riddled with so many exceptions, it means literally nothing.

We were supposed to say No when these came up, but we said yes, because being petty and idiotic, we wanted to make sure that bad guy didn’t get away with it. Now, we are all suffering the loss of our rights, tracked daily, our emails read by anyone who wants to. Our conversations listened to. Where we do have a reasonable expectation of privacy, we have an even looser standard that kicks in. National Security. The Suicide Pact you fretted about above. The Government can do anything so long as it can claim with a straight face that it is fighting Terrorism, and if Terrorism doesn’t generate enough of a knee jerk response of approval, they’ll throw in drug dealers, or even Child molesters. Thus setting the stage that anyone who opposes this is obviously a horrible person who would allow Child Molesters to continue abusing children. Perverts.

The principles outlined in the Constitution, and explained in detail in the Federalist Papers, are gone. History. Those words are meaningless now. And you can’t pretend that supporting that is anything approaching conservative.

I have no desire to argue with you....just hope to educate you.

When you wrote this:
"The founders could not imagine modern" blah blah blah.......


....it exposed your ignorance.

The way to end ignorance, and I am talking about yours, is to read. Comprehension can not take place where stupidity reigns.

People disagree with Supreme Court decisions all the time. Right now, several states are challenging the decision on Roe Vs. Wade. Are they unpatriotic, or traitorous?

Heller struck down laws that were on the books for decades. McDonald did too. We see Conservatives celebrate these successful challenges. We see many of the same Conservatives snarl and gnash their teeth at the various rulings that they hate.

How many times have politicians on the right and left immediately rushed out and rewritten a law that was struck down, so it complies with the Supreme Court decision striking down a similar law?

If you wonder why that is, it is because nobody views the Constitution properly. Not the right, nor the left. Many on the right detest the various decisions upholding the prohibitions on how suspects and prisoners are treated. Many on the Left are just as contemptuous of decisions failing to uphold similar prohibitions.

The Bill of Rights enumerated the Inalienable Rights. The rights provided by God, the Universe, Natural Law, or the Great Pumpkin if you wish. Rights that exist for Man that no other man may affect. The basis for that is the idea that all rights for British Citizens are derived from the Crown. The founders of this nation believed those rights existed long before the Crown got involved.

So the Bill of Rights was written as the Ten Commandments. Thou Shall Not. Just as there is no legal definition for Thou Shall Not Covet your Neigbors...... Just as there is no exact definition of Honor thy Father and Mother. You know what it is, and you know when you are doing what you aren’t supposed to.

The Bill of Rights was written the same. It doesn’t say The Supreme Court shall strike down as invalid any law passed by Congress.....

Nah. I hear you on info and concerns, but the political left overwhelmingly hates natural and constitutional law and the rights thereof, not the political right.

Both sides have an irrational hatred of parts of the Constitution. The left hates the Second Amendment, and is not as faithful to the First as they want to believe. The Right hates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

To give you an example. The right is a big fan of Stop and Frisk. This action plainly violates the 4th. Yet the Right which can discuss the intent and history of the Second like Constitutional Scholars refuses to even consider the reasons behind the 4th Amendment. They shout that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

I am sure the British said much the same thing as they strive to stomp out the Treasonous Rebellion in the big dust up.

Both the Left and Right think the Constitution is an obstacle to get around, or over. They do not understand that like religious texts you have to take it all into your heart, not just the parts that appear to justify what you want to do.

If the “Strict Constitutionalists” of the right believed in viewing the document as a guide, they would be up front and screaming the loudest when police misconduct was exposed. The truth is that the Constitution was always intended to protect the individual from the abuse of Government.

In many was it is like taxes. The Government needs to take as much as is required to do what it must. The problem is raised when it is not enough to do what it wants. The founders imagined a future where you and your fellow citizens held the elected and theoretically most powerful people in Government to account. You would fire them for doing what they were not supposed to do. You don’t. They don’t. Neither the left nor the right do it. We have stopped evolving at the point of the big Homecoming Game. Our team is awesome. We are red. Their team sucks. They are blue. On the other side of the stadium, they are shouting the same thing, only with blue being superior.

Issues and Principles have taken a back seat to brand loyalty. It is Ford vs. Chevy. Toyota versus Nissan. Neither side is right. Both are wrong. And when you get someone to admit his side is wrong about an issue, they point and scream that the other side is a lot more wrong on a lot of other issues.

The short version. Our side sucks, your side sucks way more.

Let’s take another issue. The Justice Department investigations into police departments. If the purpose of the Federal Government and elected officials is to defend the Constitution, and the rights of the citizens. Why stop those investigations? Why not treat them like an audit, to see where you can be doing a better job. Often we are too close to an action to see the big picture. Or the individuals doing it are ignorant that they are doing it wrong. Or they are knowingly violating the Constitution out of meanness and spite. It doesn’t matter, what matters is stopping it.

Many people blame Obama, but those investigations happened under Bush too. The right cheered the end of those investigations. Why? It was obvious they were uncovering Constitutional violations. In the case of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department more than a hundred violations in their policies and practices. Things they were doing every day.

How many people’s rights are going to be violated today? How many were violated yesterday? One, a thousand? Several Thousand? One is too many. One person deprived of their Second Amendment Rights is too many. One deprived of any right is too many. It is our job as Voters to demand this of our politicians. It is our job as citizens to say no when we see or hear of it. Yet how many excuse it? Or find a way to get over, or around, or put a door called an exception that the wall of the right is supposed to represent?

Yes. The left and right are both awful where the Constitution is discussed. Neither side accepts the restrictions.

I don't argue with exaggerated generalizations. Virtually all of the constitutionalists (American conservatives, ;libertarians, classical liberals . . .) I know are staunch defenders of all the Bill of Rights, and all PC is telling you about cultural and technological changes is that the fundamental principles of natural law are eternal and may be readily applied to correctly resolve any matter on a case by case basis. I believe that is true from both reason and experience.

 

[Zorro!]

...there is no law above "Democrats Win."



1. While this was what the term used to mean...
law
noun
\ ˈlȯ \
Definition of law
(Entry 1 of 6)

1a(1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed (see PRESCRIBE sense 1a) or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority
Definition of LAW



2. The Constitution is presumably the 'law of the land.'
Not since the 32nd President....

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation.

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution,'p. 65.


3. Contemporaneously with the Trump administration, we have seen pipsqueak Democrat apointees ignore the Constitution to support their cult, their party.
"A federal judge in New York City spiked President Donald Trump’s attempt to block a Manhattan prosecutor from obtaining his tax and financial records ..."
Judge tosses a Trump lawsuit to keep his taxes secret




4. "...President Trump is appealing to the 2nd United States Circuit to try to protect his tax returns. This after a federal district judge ruled that the President’s accountant has to hand over the returns against a subpoena in a penny ante criminal case launched by a Democratic district attorney in Manhattan pursuing a political agenda.

This is the kind of thing President Jefferson was warning against when, in 1807, he opposed trying to subpoena a president. He marked the point in a letter to a lawyer in Virginia, George Hay. “The leading principle of our Constitution is the independence of the Legislature, executive and judiciary of each other, and none are more jealous of this than the judiciary.”

“But,” warned the inspiriter of what became the Democratic Party, “would the executive be independent of the judiciary, if he were subject to the commands of the latter, & to imprisonment for disobedience; if the several courts could bandy him from pillar to post, keep him constantly trudging from north to south & east to west, and withdraw him entirely from his constitutional duties?"
Where's Thomas Jefferson when we need him?

There can be America.....or there can be Democrats in positions of power.

NOT BOTH.

Even some Obama Judges are starting to catch on to the Trump Great Again Rule of Law Judiciary.

AND AN OBAMA-APPOINTED JUDGE, TO BOOT: Judge blocks California’s illegal ban of alligator and crocodile products after Louisiana sues.

American alligators were removed from the U.S. endangered species list in 1987. The alligator business has played a key part in bringing back the animals and is important in protecting marshes and swamps and other species that depend on wetlands, according to Louisiana's lawsuit.

“California has nevertheless attempted to destroy the market for American alligator products notwithstanding the fact that no such alligators live in California,” the lawsuit said.

California's ban would leave landowners unable to continue erosion control, "resulting in irreparable harm to their property as well as harm to Louisiana’s sovereign environmental interests in wetland preservation,” the suit argued.

“I hope the courts will understand the unique combination of the industry’s effort to care for the alligator population and the need to be good stewards of the environment where the alligators live,” said Jack Montoucet, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.​