WHO are the REAL Constitutionalists?

[antagon]

A true Constitutionalist not only supports the adherence to all of the Constitution, but to the principles and philosophies that underlie it.

Not only should the Constitution be repected, but the Declaration of Independance, the federalist papers, and especially the works of Thomas Paine - the philosophical mastermind of the American Revolution.

Unfortunately, most of the works of Thomas Paine have been all but forgotten by most Americans because they are simply too radical.

The French 'Rights of Man' was authored by Thomas Paine. Additionally, his last works were an attack on organized religion and a statement of the principals of deism - the true religion of most of the founding fathers.

Both the Declaration of Independance and the U.S. Constitution were modeled on the ideas presented in his book 'Common Sense'. The work that is singly most responsible for promoting American Independance.

If more Americans were to familiarize themselves with the works of Thomas Paine, America would be a very different country.

the constitution was written with more foresight than to assume that the principles of the founders should limit the principles of their progeny. the constitution was drafted with flexibility built into it. the congress is able to determine how they use the powers enumerated them, they have the power to amend the constitution. a judiciary was created to consider its application in cases of doubt. this is all to avoid structural obsolescence of our government.

other enlightenment philosophers and the founders understood that republican government served the purpose of maintaining an alignment between the government and its constituents, lending to the wisdom to found the US on this principle, rather than on the paper government principles maintained by those who you call true constitutionalists.

 

[DiveCon]

It makes him feel smart to pretend he does.

actually, he's correct.

only certain documents have force of law. documents like the declaration of idependence, while interesting, are not among them.

i find it really funny when peoplelike you who don't know what they're talking about not only state incorrect things, but insult the people who ARE saying the correct things.

it's amusing to watch opposite world.

tell me, which would be more important to understand what the constitution was about, the federalist papers(written by the men that wrote the Constitution) or foreign laws?

 

[antagon]

the role that foreign law plays, particularly british law, cant be played down because of the references that the constitution makes to it. because there's no mutually exclusive relationship between this understanding and the federal papers, i think considering which is more influential is silly.

to understand the role that the fed papers play, one would have to keep in mind that the opinions in them were not the exclusive opinions which led to the constitution's final draft. considering hamilton's disposition after the government was founded, i would argue that his contribution to the fed papers was more persuasive for the benefit of confederates than it was a reflection of his vision of strong federal government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It makes him feel smart to pretend he does.

actually, he's correct.

only certain documents have force of law. documents like the declaration of idependence, while interesting, are not among them.

i find it really funny when peoplelike you who don't know what they're talking about not only state incorrect things, but insult the people who ARE saying the correct things.

it's amusing to watch opposite world.

He is correct? Here is what he said that I actually mocked.

The Constitution only is the foundation for American law. The other documents are interesting but have nothing to do with interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to law.

If he is correct almost every lawyer I know is wrong, because they all believe that US law is founded on more than the Constitution. Congress is free to look anywhere and everywhere when making laws, as long as they fit within the framework of the Constitution. SCOTUS has been known to cite precedents from English common law, and even international courts, in reaching their decisions.

If the Constitution were the sole foundation of US law we would not have the half of the federal bureaucracy we currently have, nor would we have the new health care law.

What amuses me is when people think they know what I am thinking, and then attempt to correct me for mocking others based on my correct interpretation of the facts and what the other person is saying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It has been written that "SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."

 

[DiveCon]

It has been written that "SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."

yes, because no SCOTUS decision has EVER been reversed


SCOTUS is infallible

 

[JakeStarkey]

It has been written that "SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."

 

[DiveCon]

It has been written that "SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."

yes, because no SCOTUS decision has EVER been reversed


SCOTUS is infallible

It has been written that "SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."

see above

moron

 

[Spoonman]

You do not need proof of insurance to own a car.

Link?

how about you providing the link that say you must have insurance to own a car?

Like that dipshit would ever provide a link. He's a troll.

 

[Spoonman]

LOL you need to add a few more to mine, but you got his right

I just started the tally but i'm expecting as soon as he opens his yap it will be

Divecon 1 - Starkey -1

you are giving him too much credit

You do realize that is a negative 1 on his side?

 

[Spoonman]

It has been written that "SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."

Hey Jake? Am I banned? FAIL

Bwwaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! God starkey, you suck at this. LMAO

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hi, Spoonman. I don't know if you were banned or suspended or not. You know the rules now. Family is off limits.

 

[Spoonman]

Hi, Spoonman. I don't know if you were banned or suspended or not. You know the rules now. Family is off limits.

Ha Ha starkey. You fail. Nice gloat fail you moron. I can't stop laughing

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[boedicca]

Real Constitutionalists don't believe the government is responsible for providing food, housing, education, and health care...nor do they believe that any company is Too Big Too Fail...for starters.

 

[Spoonman]

Your fail always makes my day. Great weekend and then I come back to your failure. Sorry to burst your bubble but I wasn't banned. Your attempt failed. smooth move jackass

 

[DiveCon]

I just started the tally but i'm expecting as soon as he opens his yap it will be

Divecon 1 - Starkey -1

you are giving him too much credit

You do realize that is a negative 1 on his side?

but even that is giving him too much credit

 

[Spoonman]

you are giving him too much credit

You do realize that is a negative 1 on his side?

but even that is giving him too much credit

Yea, but I see he made it up to like minus 50 over the weekend. Maybe someday he'll grow up and discover a real life.

 

[DiveCon]

You do realize that is a negative 1 on his side?

but even that is giving him too much credit

Yea, but I see he made it up to like minus 50 over the weekend. Maybe someday he'll grow up and discover a real life.

somehow, i doubt it
i think he is doomed to perpetual FAIL

 

[JakeStarkey]

You do realize that is a negative 1 on his side?

but even that is giving him too much credit

Yea, but I see he made it up to like minus 50 over the weekend. Maybe someday he'll grow up and discover a real life.