WHO are the REAL Constitutionalists?

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Apr 4, 2009
16,829
2,492
245
I constantly hear all you right wing pea brains 'claim' that the Constitution MUST be adhered to and that Democrats and liberals always want to change it...

Guess what pea brains...

ap_logo.gif


ALeqM5gEMD8GKOOqD3mdZANB-4xt4RzApA
ALeqM5jsSCFN-NOFjbkLAK3AVnoq94rnRg


WASHINGTON — Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for — lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.

This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.

Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Democrats — who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document — have proposed 27 amendments, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.

The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship. Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top GOP lawmaker on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment's authors didn't intend.

Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document's "plain language," is taking a different approach with the 14th Amendment. "I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."

Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and — an old favorite — prohibit desecration of the American flag.

During the health care debate, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., introduced an amendment that would allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress — a move that would radically alter the Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties because she fears the Obama administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.

Whole Article...
 
Is there any major achievement, figure, event, etc that you don't claim as yours?

You're becoming even more ridiculous than previous evidence had suggested. Oh wait.... no, my mistake... None of it is actually your own thought - you just 'form' your opinions by ingesting someone else's. Got it.
 
Well ok, responding to the OP.

Anyone who would defend everyone who says they're on your side is an idiot. The guy in GA thinks for himself and he is or does whatever that is, but that is meaningless to me.

AMENDING the Constitution is what you are SUPPOSED to do when you don't like it. The conservatives don't mind if the Dems try to change it that way. They may disagree on substance, but not on form. But that's not how the Dems usually try to change the Constitution, is it?

Nope. Instead, they go to the court system. They try to change the law that way. For instance, in the case of abortions. Imagine if you will, it's 1959 and the right to privacy does not exist. If you are a Yale law professor you just say, "Let's try again. Let's see if we can get the police to arrest an unmarried person for buying a condom." After nearly a decade of trying they succeed. They had to get the police in a complete pickle before they would do it, but they did. And Griswold v. Connecticut was born. It goes to the supreme court and a couple justices have a fantasy about penumbra arising like a mist from the 4th, 8th and 9th Amendments. And, presto, now there is a right to privacy just as strong as the ones that you can actually see written there.

So, building on this success the left goes on to tackle the issue they wanted, abortion. Roe v. Wade takes Griswold and extends it. Notice, no Constitutional amendment has taken place, but the Constitution is substantially changed.

I can go on. US v. Darby where the Sct guts the 10th Amendment. Wickard v. Filburn, where the Sct. says that no commerce is actually commerce so the Congress can regulate no commerce as well as real commerce. Look it up if you don't understand that. After that, everything is commerce so Congress can regulate everything because everything is either commerce or no commerce, right? That's the justification for the Health Care law.

The Constitution is changed, and no amendment process.
 
Well ok, responding to the OP.

Anyone who would defend everyone who says they're on your side is an idiot. The guy in GA thinks for himself and he is or does whatever that is, but that is meaningless to me.

AMENDING the Constitution is what you are SUPPOSED to do when you don't like it. The conservatives don't mind if the Dems try to change it that way. They may disagree on substance, but not on form. But that's not how the Dems usually try to change the Constitution, is it?

Nope. Instead, they go to the court system. They try to change the law that way. For instance, in the case of abortions. Imagine if you will, it's 1959 and the right to privacy does not exist. If you are a Yale law professor you just say, "Let's try again. Let's see if we can get the police to arrest an unmarried person for buying a condom." After nearly a decade of trying they succeed. They had to get the police in a complete pickle before they would do it, but they did. And Griswold v. Connecticut was born. It goes to the supreme court and a couple justices have a fantasy about penumbra arising like a mist from the 4th, 8th and 9th Amendments. And, presto, now there is a right to privacy just as strong as the ones that you can actually see written there.

So, building on this success the left goes on to tackle the issue they wanted, abortion. Roe v. Wade takes Griswold and extends it. Notice, no Constitutional amendment has taken place, but the Constitution is substantially changed.

I can go on. US v. Darby where the Sct guts the 10th Amendment. Wickard v. Filburn, where the Sct. says that no commerce is actually commerce so the Congress can regulate no commerce as well as real commerce. Look it up if you don't understand that. After that, everything is commerce so Congress can regulate everything because everything is either commerce or no commerce, right? That's the justification for the Health Care law.

The Constitution is changed, and no amendment process.
:clap2:
 
I constantly hear all you right wing pea brains 'claim' that the Constitution MUST be adhered to and that Democrats and liberals always want to change it...

Guess what pea brains...

ap_logo.gif


ALeqM5gEMD8GKOOqD3mdZANB-4xt4RzApA
ALeqM5jsSCFN-NOFjbkLAK3AVnoq94rnRg


WASHINGTON — Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for — lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.

This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.

Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Democrats — who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document — have proposed 27 amendments, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.

The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship. Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top GOP lawmaker on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment's authors didn't intend.

Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document's "plain language," is taking a different approach with the 14th Amendment. "I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."

Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and — an old favorite — prohibit desecration of the American flag.

During the health care debate, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., introduced an amendment that would allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress — a move that would radically alter the Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties because she fears the Obama administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.

Whole Article...

Let me see if I understand your position.

You oppose amending the Constitution if someone finds there is a problem with it. I guess that means you also oppose sovereign immunity, want to go back to separately electing the President and vice President, restore slavery, allow states to deny citizenship and the right to vote to people based on the color of their skin, their age, or their sex.

Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is, or will you just admit you got carried away by another idiot's story that tickled your juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans?
 
Let me see if I understand your position.

You oppose amending the Constitution if someone finds there is a problem with it. I guess that means you also oppose sovereign immunity, want to go back to separately electing the President and vice President, restore slavery, allow states to deny citizenship and the right to vote to people based on the color of their skin, their age, or their sex.

Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is, or will you just admit you got carried away by another idiot's story that tickled your juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans?
Smart money goes with "... juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans".

Just sayin'. ;)
 
Let me see if I understand your position.

You oppose amending the Constitution if someone finds there is a problem with it. I guess that means you also oppose sovereign immunity, want to go back to separately electing the President and vice President, restore slavery, allow states to deny citizenship and the right to vote to people based on the color of their skin, their age, or their sex.

Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is, or will you just admit you got carried away by another idiot's story that tickled your juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans?
Smart money goes with "... juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans".

Just sayin'. ;)

Hey DUDE, why the new screen name Jethro?
 
I constantly hear all you right wing pea brains 'claim' that the Constitution MUST be adhered to and that Democrats and liberals always want to change it...

Guess what pea brains...

ap_logo.gif


ALeqM5gEMD8GKOOqD3mdZANB-4xt4RzApA
ALeqM5jsSCFN-NOFjbkLAK3AVnoq94rnRg


WASHINGTON — Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for — lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.

This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.

Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Democrats — who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document — have proposed 27 amendments, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.

The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship. Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top GOP lawmaker on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment's authors didn't intend.

Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document's "plain language," is taking a different approach with the 14th Amendment. "I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."

Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and — an old favorite — prohibit desecration of the American flag.

During the health care debate, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., introduced an amendment that would allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress — a move that would radically alter the Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties because she fears the Obama administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.

Whole Article...

Let me see if I understand your position.

You oppose amending the Constitution if someone finds there is a problem with it. I guess that means you also oppose sovereign immunity, want to go back to separately electing the President and vice President, restore slavery, allow states to deny citizenship and the right to vote to people based on the color of their skin, their age, or their sex.

Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is, or will you just admit you got carried away by another idiot's story that tickled your juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans?

Carried away? I don't think so. All the amendments you cite increased freedoms and liberties for We, the People.

And, THAT is what Democrats continue to do.

Republicans and right wing teabaggers want to DEcrease or remove freedoms and liberties for We, the People: repeal the 14th amendment, repeal the 17th amendment, ban marriages that don't comply to their dogma...

Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is?
 
I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.

I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.
 

Forum List

Back
Top