An Open Letter to our Resident Constitutionalist

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Where the hell is emilynghiem

 

[HeyNorm]

I have no idea what you're talking about or how it is relevent to the topic. How did they impose their ideology? By daring to demand equality. Straight people have been imposing their ideloogy on others for a long time now.

What others? All straights have asked is that you marry as all others must, members of the opposite sex, regardless of sexuality.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Introduction and Background

For some time now (1) emilynghiem | US Message Board Political Discussion Forum and I have been sparring over various social and legal issues from decidedly different philosophies and perspectives. Those differences most often centered on LGBT issues, as has the most recent encounter:

Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!' | Page 45 | US Message Board Political Discussion Forum

It would be a gross understatement to say that we have differing views of the role of government in relation to social issues. Emely is a self-described Constitutionalist (1) which seems to fit well with her view that the courts should not be creating rights such as “gay marriage” but rather, should adhere to a more literal and limited view of the constitution.

While I believe in a living constitution, her views are more akin to a Textualist or Originalist interpretation. While there are nuanced differences among those modes of interpretation, the common denominator is a bent toward a conservative, as opposed to a progressive Moral Reasoning (2) approach. Lastly, the Constitutionalism being referred to is not to be confused with Living Constitutionalism(3) ( References appear below)

Adding to our differences is the fact that Emily has been adamant about accommodating all ideologies and points of view, imagining some sort of fantasy land were everyone could live as they wish in an environment free of conflict, as though that would be possible . I naturally took umbrage to that suggestion, the reasons for which I make clear in my letter. While at first I thought that taking such a position was the product of misguided idealism, I have come to see it in a different light, Now the letter
______________________________________________________________
Dear Emily,

The time has come to be direct and cut to the chase. You have been presenting yourself as someone who seeks to create some sort of Utopian promise land where everyone’s needs, beliefs and political ideologies are accommodated, although you have never actually explained how that would work in reality. The best that you offered was vague references to organizing people according to the beliefs by political parties or churches.

For a long while, I allowed myself to believe that this was all simply due to idealistic naiveite on your part. However, as we go along, I can not help be to conclude that there is something sinister and nefarious about your politics and philosophy. Your insistence on presenting all ideologies as equally deserving of consideration- where the oppressor is given a seat at the table alongside of the oppressed while government stays out of the way is a form of social Darwinism, and it is dangerous. Equality, which you claim to seek will never be achieved by subjecting one group to the capricious and arbitrary whims of the other when the balance of power is inherently unequal, and I think that you know it.

All ideologies are not equal because they have different impacts on different groups. The difference often comes down to-on one hand- the desire extend rights to others while doing so has little or no impact on those who oppose those rights. On the other hand you have those who are seeking to withhold rights and forcing others to live according to the beliefs and prejudices because of some irrational and nebulous fear.

Attempting to accommodate and appease all ideologies regardless of their agenda and intentions, while promoting limited government and a toothless judiciary is to empower the forces of tyranny. To do so in the name of greater freedom and equality is disingenuous and opprobrious. The simple fact is –that while the bestowing of rights does not have to be a zero sum game - there are certain groups, if given free reign, will indeed trample on and diminish the rights of others out of the irrational fear that allowing those rights will cost them something

I have (slightly) more respect for those who are upfront with their intentions to discriminate against and marginalize others, than I do for people who claim that they want freedom for all and push these Constitutionalist or Libertarian arguments as a means towards that end. Libertarians especially are fond of bleating about “freedom” and a limited government that does not intrude of people's lives. They shy away from promoting laws that they perceive as oppressive. They are also quick to shun measures like hate crime and anti discrimination laws. As such, they give a green light to those outside of government to do the dirty work for them. The result is that some are more free than others, but in reality no one is free until we are all free.

In any case, the outcome can only be socially regressive, which is why I found it especially laughable that you, at one point suggested that you are progressive. Progressives believe in progress. I am for moving forward. Your policies and philosophy would clearly take us backward. Game over Emily. You fool me no more .

Regards, Progresive Patriot

PS There were not “fine people on both sides” as Trump proclaimed after the Charlottesville Va. killing of Heather Heyer as Trump proclaimed.

________
Note(1) A constitutionalist is someone who believes in the principles of limited government and individual rights. The term is often used to describe someone who wants to adhere strictly to the constitution. It can also be used more generally to describe someone who believes that government should be limited by constitutional law.
What Is a Constitutionalist? - Constitution of the United States

Note (2) Another approach to constitutional interpretation is based on moral or ethical reasoning—often broadly called the ethos of the law. 1 Under this approach, some constitutional text employs or makes reference to terms that are infused with (and informed by) certain moral concepts or ideals, such as equal protection or due process of law. 2
Moral Reasoning and Constitutional Interpretation | Constitution ...


Note (3) The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the United States Constitution holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended. The Constitution is said to develop alongside society's needs and provide a more malleable tool for governments.
Living Constitution - Wikipedia

That's an awful lot of words to say very, very, very little.

You could have said the same thing more concisely, by simply saying it this way…

I'm a lawless piece of shit who believes that government should do what I want it to do, regardless of what the Constitution itself, and all the other laws below it, say government should do.​

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If you are interested, would you like to review my idea, and maybe, I can answer the questions that you directed to Emily about how to get to a utopia?

The OP has some rather strange ideas of what would constitute a “Utopia”

I refer to a bizarre essay that it wrote, some years ago, expressing a fantasy about space aliens imposing on us its idea of a “Utopia”. It begins with drug-based brainwashing to eliminate religious faith; and only goes downhill from there.

Scenario: We are contacted by an alien life form-far more wise and advanced than we- and offered the chance to achieve universal peace and prosperity, if we agree to a few conditions. This is not in the form of a threat. If we decline, they will go on their way and we will be left as we are and they will not give us another chance for 10,000 years. At the same time, if we accept, we will be bound by their conditions for 10,000 years, enough time for us to evolve into a peaceful species. If asked to, they would leave sooner but there would be consequences- much of which will be of our own making-such as when the US left Iraq.

The conditions:
1.All religious expression and thought of religion-yes thought- will be abolished. They have developed a drug to cleanse the mind of all such primitive thought patterns which, they know, causes so much strife in our world. Houses of worship will become centers for performing arts, or museums funded by the government. Some will be converted to housing.

2.All weapons of all kind must be destroyed. Militaries will be for use in natural emergencies only.

3.Hording of wealth is strictly prohibited. Everyone need not be equal in this respect and there will still be private property, but disparity will be very limited

4.Capitalism will be allowed, but business will be strictly regulated to ensure that people are put before profit, and that the environment is protected.

5.All forms of discrimination against any group will be strictly prohibited. They don’t have a pill for that, we’ll just have to get over it.

6.Necessities of life-food, shelter, medicine and clothing-will be recognized as universal human rights and will not be rationed based on a person’s ability to pay.

7.Nations will retain their autonomy, culture and language but be must be organized into a federation of cooperative states who share all natural resources. National leaders will be selected by direct elections in all countries but the Supreme Council of Extra Planetary rulers will have the power to impeach and remove from office, anyone who violates or undermines any of these conditions. Strict term limits will be established and two members of the same family cannot hold high office within 20 years of one another.

8.All creatures of the earth and the earth herself will be treated with respect and care. The systematic destruction of the planet and it’s life forms in the name of profit, power or sport will end.

9.Capital punishment and most prison terms will be abolished worldwide. Minor offenses will be treated as behavioral health and educational issues with the emphasis on rehabilitation. Serious crimes such as violent offenses and white collar theft will be dealt with as described in # 10 below.

10.While these aliens will be inconspicuous in our daily lives-they may even live among us in human form- they will be vigilant, and take action when needed. Anyone not complying with these conditions-or who commits a serious crime- will be banished to a distant war like planet where many live under Spartan conditions and subject to a small wealthy ruling class( which they will not be part of) and the rule is survival of the fittest-in other words, much like earth is now, but much, much worse

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Where the hell is emilynghiem

Don't know why you gave me a thank you on my earlier post. I tend to agree with emilynghiem in that I find all written laws oppressive. If the law reads that that all men/women are equal then they're all equal and no further amendment or law is required. Writing it down that someone or some special group has rights just because you feel they're oppressed because you feel they are being singled out only means you're being oppressive yourself.

Either the law already applies equally or it doesn't and if some group is being singled out by another then legal action should be taken against that group. If the justices' reviewing that law make bad decisions that can't be helped.

Everything is flawed and we are only...

*****SMILE*****

 

[Grumblenuts]

Where the hell is emilynghiem

Waiting in The Bull Ring perhaps?
Emily tries but misunderstands
She's often inclined to borrow somebody's dreams 'til tomorrow..

 

[westwall]

Introduction and Background

For some time now (1) emilynghiem | US Message Board Political Discussion Forum and I have been sparring over various social and legal issues from decidedly different philosophies and perspectives. Those differences most often centered on LGBT issues, as has the most recent encounter:

Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!' | Page 45 | US Message Board Political Discussion Forum

It would be a gross understatement to say that we have differing views of the role of government in relation to social issues. Emely is a self-described Constitutionalist (1) which seems to fit well with her view that the courts should not be creating rights such as “gay marriage” but rather, should adhere to a more literal and limited view of the constitution.

While I believe in a living constitution, her views are more akin to a Textualist or Originalist interpretation. While there are nuanced differences among those modes of interpretation, the common denominator is a bent toward a conservative, as opposed to a progressive Moral Reasoning (2) approach. Lastly, the Constitutionalism being referred to is not to be confused with Living Constitutionalism(3) ( References appear below)

Adding to our differences is the fact that Emily has been adamant about accommodating all ideologies and points of view, imagining some sort of fantasy land were everyone could live as they wish in an environment free of conflict, as though that would be possible . I naturally took umbrage to that suggestion, the reasons for which I make clear in my letter. While at first I thought that taking such a position was the product of misguided idealism, I have come to see it in a different light, Now the letter
______________________________________________________________
Dear Emily,

The time has come to be direct and cut to the chase. You have been presenting yourself as someone who seeks to create some sort of Utopian promise land where everyone’s needs, beliefs and political ideologies are accommodated, although you have never actually explained how that would work in reality. The best that you offered was vague references to organizing people according to the beliefs by political parties or churches.

For a long while, I allowed myself to believe that this was all simply due to idealistic naiveite on your part. However, as we go along, I can not help be to conclude that there is something sinister and nefarious about your politics and philosophy. Your insistence on presenting all ideologies as equally deserving of consideration- where the oppressor is given a seat at the table alongside of the oppressed while government stays out of the way is a form of social Darwinism, and it is dangerous. Equality, which you claim to seek will never be achieved by subjecting one group to the capricious and arbitrary whims of the other when the balance of power is inherently unequal, and I think that you know it.

All ideologies are not equal because they have different impacts on different groups. The difference often comes down to-on one hand- the desire extend rights to others while doing so has little or no impact on those who oppose those rights. On the other hand you have those who are seeking to withhold rights and forcing others to live according to the beliefs and prejudices because of some irrational and nebulous fear.

Attempting to accommodate and appease all ideologies regardless of their agenda and intentions, while promoting limited government and a toothless judiciary is to empower the forces of tyranny. To do so in the name of greater freedom and equality is disingenuous and opprobrious. The simple fact is –that while the bestowing of rights does not have to be a zero sum game - there are certain groups, if given free reign, will indeed trample on and diminish the rights of others out of the irrational fear that allowing those rights will cost them something

I have (slightly) more respect for those who are upfront with their intentions to discriminate against and marginalize others, than I do for people who claim that they want freedom for all and push these Constitutionalist or Libertarian arguments as a means towards that end. Libertarians especially are fond of bleating about “freedom” and a limited government that does not intrude of people's lives. They shy away from promoting laws that they perceive as oppressive. They are also quick to shun measures like hate crime and anti discrimination laws. As such, they give a green light to those outside of government to do the dirty work for them. The result is that some are more free than others, but in reality no one is free until we are all free.

In any case, the outcome can only be socially regressive, which is why I found it especially laughable that you, at one point suggested that you are progressive. Progressives believe in progress. I am for moving forward. Your policies and philosophy would clearly take us backward. Game over Emily. You fool me no more .

Regards, Progresive Patriot

PS There were not “fine people on both sides” as Trump proclaimed after the Charlottesville Va. killing of Heather Heyer as Trump proclaimed.

________
Note(1) A constitutionalist is someone who believes in the principles of limited government and individual rights. The term is often used to describe someone who wants to adhere strictly to the constitution. It can also be used more generally to describe someone who believes that government should be limited by constitutional law.
What Is a Constitutionalist? - Constitution of the United States

Note (2) Another approach to constitutional interpretation is based on moral or ethical reasoning—often broadly called the ethos of the law. 1 Under this approach, some constitutional text employs or makes reference to terms that are infused with (and informed by) certain moral concepts or ideals, such as equal protection or due process of law. 2
Moral Reasoning and Constitutional Interpretation | Constitution ...


Note (3) The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the United States Constitution holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended. The Constitution is said to develop alongside society's needs and provide a more malleable tool for governments.
Living Constitution - Wikipedia

And it is a wrong-headed idea. Fraught with danger to the individual. This country was founded on the principle that the majority could not just willy nilly take things from the minority.

Tread lightly when you wish to attack the minority.....for you may find yourself there in the not too distant future.

 

[Oddball]

Where the hell is emilynghiem

I don't remember Emily being an everyday poster for as long as I've been here.

You remind me of a few of my buddies, who carp at me for not returning their texts right away, when they know damn well that I'm known to walk away from my phone for protracted periods of time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A constitutionalist is someone who believes in the principles of limited government and individual rights.

There are ‘constitutionalists’ who are inconsistent in their application of ‘limited government’ and ‘individual rights.’

‘Limited government’ is far much more than just reckless, irresponsible tax cuts and deregulation.

Indeed, there are ‘constitutionalists’ who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty – such as those hostile to the privacy rights of women and the equal protection rights of gay and transgender Americans.

‘Constitutionalists’ are also inconstant in their perception of what manifests as government – they advocate for limiting the Federal government but take no issue with state and local governments violating the rights and protected liberties of the people.

Last, ‘constitutionalists’ fail to understand the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, to ‘adhere strictly to the Constitution’ means to accept and follow that case law, not what the ‘constitutionalist’ might ‘think’ or ‘believe.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There were not “fine people on both sides” as Trump proclaimed after the Charlottesville Va. killing of Heather Heyer as Trump proclaimed.

True.

Likewise, ‘both sides’ are not ‘the same.’

‘Both sides’ didn’t attack America’s democracy on 1/6 to overturn a lawful election reflecting the will of the people.

 

[sparky]

I have no idea what you're talking about or how it is relevent to the topic. How did they impose their ideology? By daring to demand equality. Straight people have been imposing their ideloogy on others for a long time now.

constitutionalists are akin to fundamentalists , in the sense that they are unmovable , and will debate what is written down to punctuation , as we've seen with the 2nd Amd PP

The ideal of a living doc escapes them , along with the socio-politico implications they see as violations of them.

The back forth Roe V Wade serving as a grand example

Now the desire for equality is on the table yet again, how many times have we seen this in the last century?

The crux being how we address it.

How are differences that exist equal at all PP?
Why can we not acknowledge equality AND differences ?

Those that wish to address the concept by declaring they do not, and further legislating it institute socio political standards that become contra to equality , by granting those differences a pass

literally reeking of Orwell's animal farm incarnate

~S~

 

[Grumblenuts]

How are differences that exist equal at all PP?
Why can we not acknowledge equality AND differences ?

Reason dictates ceaselessly celebrating some differences while decrying others. That's just part of "life" or the human condition. No guarantees. Always room for improvement.

I say collectively derive reasonable limits or ranges of acceptable difference for all and enforce them. Rinse and repeat often.

That's how scoundrels representing thirteen disparate colonies hammered out a document all could sign. We can do it again.. And again..

 

[emilynghiem]

Introduction and Background

For some time now (1) emilynghiem | US Message Board Political Discussion Forum and I have been sparring over various social and legal issues from decidedly different philosophies and perspectives. Those differences most often centered on LGBT issues, as has the most recent encounter:

Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!' | Page 45 | US Message Board Political Discussion Forum

It would be a gross understatement to say that we have differing views of the role of government in relation to social issues. Emely is a self-described Constitutionalist (1) which seems to fit well with her view that the courts should not be creating rights such as “gay marriage” but rather, should adhere to a more literal and limited view of the constitution.

While I believe in a living constitution, her views are more akin to a Textualist or Originalist interpretation. While there are nuanced differences among those modes of interpretation, the common denominator is a bent toward a conservative, as opposed to a progressive Moral Reasoning (2) approach. Lastly, the Constitutionalism being referred to is not to be confused with Living Constitutionalism(3) ( References appear below)

Adding to our differences is the fact that Emily has been adamant about accommodating all ideologies and points of view, imagining some sort of fantasy land were everyone could live as they wish in an environment free of conflict, as though that would be possible . I naturally took umbrage to that suggestion, the reasons for which I make clear in my letter. While at first I thought that taking such a position was the product of misguided idealism, I have come to see it in a different light, Now the letter
______________________________________________________________
Dear Emily,

The time has come to be direct and cut to the chase. You have been presenting yourself as someone who seeks to create some sort of Utopian promise land where everyone’s needs, beliefs and political ideologies are accommodated, although you have never actually explained how that would work in reality. The best that you offered was vague references to organizing people according to the beliefs by political parties or churches.

For a long while, I allowed myself to believe that this was all simply due to idealistic naiveite on your part. However, as we go along, I can not help be to conclude that there is something sinister and nefarious about your politics and philosophy. Your insistence on presenting all ideologies as equally deserving of consideration- where the oppressor is given a seat at the table alongside of the oppressed while government stays out of the way is a form of social Darwinism, and it is dangerous. Equality, which you claim to seek will never be achieved by subjecting one group to the capricious and arbitrary whims of the other when the balance of power is inherently unequal, and I think that you know it.

All ideologies are not equal because they have different impacts on different groups. The difference often comes down to-on one hand- the desire extend rights to others while doing so has little or no impact on those who oppose those rights. On the other hand you have those who are seeking to withhold rights and forcing others to live according to the beliefs and prejudices because of some irrational and nebulous fear.

Attempting to accommodate and appease all ideologies regardless of their agenda and intentions, while promoting limited government and a toothless judiciary is to empower the forces of tyranny. To do so in the name of greater freedom and equality is disingenuous and opprobrious. The simple fact is –that while the bestowing of rights does not have to be a zero sum game - there are certain groups, if given free reign, will indeed trample on and diminish the rights of others out of the irrational fear that allowing those rights will cost them something

I have (slightly) more respect for those who are upfront with their intentions to discriminate against and marginalize others, than I do for people who claim that they want freedom for all and push these Constitutionalist or Libertarian arguments as a means towards that end. Libertarians especially are fond of bleating about “freedom” and a limited government that does not intrude of people's lives. They shy away from promoting laws that they perceive as oppressive. They are also quick to shun measures like hate crime and anti discrimination laws. As such, they give a green light to those outside of government to do the dirty work for them. The result is that some are more free than others, but in reality no one is free until we are all free.

In any case, the outcome can only be socially regressive, which is why I found it especially laughable that you, at one point suggested that you are progressive. Progressives believe in progress. I am for moving forward. Your policies and philosophy would clearly take us backward. Game over Emily. You fool me no more .

Regards, Progresive Patriot

PS There were not “fine people on both sides” as Trump proclaimed after the Charlottesville Va. killing of Heather Heyer as Trump proclaimed.

________
Note(1) A constitutionalist is someone who believes in the principles of limited government and individual rights. The term is often used to describe someone who wants to adhere strictly to the constitution. It can also be used more generally to describe someone who believes that government should be limited by constitutional law.
What Is a Constitutionalist? - Constitution of the United States

Note (2) Another approach to constitutional interpretation is based on moral or ethical reasoning—often broadly called the ethos of the law. 1 Under this approach, some constitutional text employs or makes reference to terms that are infused with (and informed by) certain moral concepts or ideals, such as equal protection or due process of law. 2
Moral Reasoning and Constitutional Interpretation | Constitution ...


Note (3) The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the United States Constitution holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended. The Constitution is said to develop alongside society's needs and provide a more malleable tool for governments.
Living Constitution - Wikipedia

Dear The Progressive Patriot
Much the same way people respect other religious groups having rights to run their own sects, schools, services etc by the beliefs of those members, that's how I see where are Parties are heading.

We currently and historically have never allowed Hindus Muslims etc to form a majority in Congress and outvote dissenters to impose their groups beliefs

Yet we allow Parties to do what Religions are not allowed to do.

We already have a precedent for how we keep religious groups from legislating by majority vote or judicial Ruling.


The same way we let Parties run their own conventions and pass resolutions for their ownmembers, that's all I'm asking

Is we start treating and respecting party creeds platforms and agenda with the same standards we already apply to religious organizations that have their own biased beliefs and practices their members believe and have rights to practice

NOTE the most interesting difference between me and other Constitutionalists Is that I also and especially ask to treat Constitutionalism itself as a political belief system so it's treated equally as Statism, Liberalism, Anarchism Socialism Capitalism Communism Feminism Humanism Libertarianism etc etc.

All these should be voluntary practices so there is no abuse or oppression by any person or group of one creed infringing or imposing on another.


We already do this in the media and parties keeping people of like beliefs grouped together.

The problem always occurs when groups compete to impose on the public or each other. Again we already have plenty of precedence where Muslims decide their own policies, the Catholic church does, Jehovah's Witnesses and Jewish and Baptists don't agree what the Bible says or means, and we do not ever imagine an outside group can decide by majority to dictate for all other religious organizations what the common policy is going to be unilaterally.

All I'm asking is to recognize political beliefs creeds and ideologies (including Liberal Statism and Constitutional Libertarianism) as equal beliefs that parties cannot abuse govt to deny or disparage, impose or infringe upon, prohibit nor establish but which require consent of the members to ensure free exercise without coercion or fraud

 

[emilynghiem]

Introduction and Background

For some time now (1) emilynghiem | US Message Board Political Discussion Forum and I have been sparring over various social and legal issues from decidedly different philosophies and perspectives. Those differences most often centered on LGBT issues, as has the most recent encounter:

Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!' | Page 45 | US Message Board Political Discussion Forum

It would be a gross understatement to say that we have differing views of the role of government in relation to social issues. Emely is a self-described Constitutionalist (1) which seems to fit well with her view that the courts should not be creating rights such as “gay marriage” but rather, should adhere to a more literal and limited view of the constitution.

While I believe in a living constitution, her views are more akin to a Textualist or Originalist interpretation. While there are nuanced differences among those modes of interpretation, the common denominator is a bent toward a conservative, as opposed to a progressive Moral Reasoning (2) approach. Lastly, the Constitutionalism being referred to is not to be confused with Living Constitutionalism(3) ( References appear below)

Adding to our differences is the fact that Emily has been adamant about accommodating all ideologies and points of view, imagining some sort of fantasy land were everyone could live as they wish in an environment free of conflict, as though that would be possible . I naturally took umbrage to that suggestion, the reasons for which I make clear in my letter. While at first I thought that taking such a position was the product of misguided idealism, I have come to see it in a different light, Now the letter
______________________________________________________________
Dear Emily,

The time has come to be direct and cut to the chase. You have been presenting yourself as someone who seeks to create some sort of Utopian promise land where everyone’s needs, beliefs and political ideologies are accommodated, although you have never actually explained how that would work in reality. The best that you offered was vague references to organizing people according to the beliefs by political parties or churches.

For a long while, I allowed myself to believe that this was all simply due to idealistic naiveite on your part. However, as we go along, I can not help be to conclude that there is something sinister and nefarious about your politics and philosophy. Your insistence on presenting all ideologies as equally deserving of consideration- where the oppressor is given a seat at the table alongside of the oppressed while government stays out of the way is a form of social Darwinism, and it is dangerous. Equality, which you claim to seek will never be achieved by subjecting one group to the capricious and arbitrary whims of the other when the balance of power is inherently unequal, and I think that you know it.

All ideologies are not equal because they have different impacts on different groups. The difference often comes down to-on one hand- the desire extend rights to others while doing so has little or no impact on those who oppose those rights. On the other hand you have those who are seeking to withhold rights and forcing others to live according to the beliefs and prejudices because of some irrational and nebulous fear.

Attempting to accommodate and appease all ideologies regardless of their agenda and intentions, while promoting limited government and a toothless judiciary is to empower the forces of tyranny. To do so in the name of greater freedom and equality is disingenuous and opprobrious. The simple fact is –that while the bestowing of rights does not have to be a zero sum game - there are certain groups, if given free reign, will indeed trample on and diminish the rights of others out of the irrational fear that allowing those rights will cost them something

I have (slightly) more respect for those who are upfront with their intentions to discriminate against and marginalize others, than I do for people who claim that they want freedom for all and push these Constitutionalist or Libertarian arguments as a means towards that end. Libertarians especially are fond of bleating about “freedom” and a limited government that does not intrude of people's lives. They shy away from promoting laws that they perceive as oppressive. They are also quick to shun measures like hate crime and anti discrimination laws. As such, they give a green light to those outside of government to do the dirty work for them. The result is that some are more free than others, but in reality no one is free until we are all free.

In any case, the outcome can only be socially regressive, which is why I found it especially laughable that you, at one point suggested that you are progressive. Progressives believe in progress. I am for moving forward. Your policies and philosophy would clearly take us backward. Game over Emily. You fool me no more .

Regards, Progresive Patriot

PS There were not “fine people on both sides” as Trump proclaimed after the Charlottesville Va. killing of Heather Heyer as Trump proclaimed.

________
Note(1) A constitutionalist is someone who believes in the principles of limited government and individual rights. The term is often used to describe someone who wants to adhere strictly to the constitution. It can also be used more generally to describe someone who believes that government should be limited by constitutional law.
What Is a Constitutionalist? - Constitution of the United States

Note (2) Another approach to constitutional interpretation is based on moral or ethical reasoning—often broadly called the ethos of the law. 1 Under this approach, some constitutional text employs or makes reference to terms that are infused with (and informed by) certain moral concepts or ideals, such as equal protection or due process of law. 2
Moral Reasoning and Constitutional Interpretation | Constitution ...


Note (3) The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the United States Constitution holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended. The Constitution is said to develop alongside society's needs and provide a more malleable tool for governments.
Living Constitution - Wikipedia

So to answer your key question how would we go about protecting all parties and political ideologies from each other

1. Use a mix of party structures and media resources including internet to set up Councils with Reps from the various parties per district to address and resolve policy issues, objections and solutions inclusively

2. Where parties agree on policies these can be written up as either local, state or federal policies for those areas and audiences where agreement is reached on the most ethical cost effective sustainable means of meeting public objectives. This can be agreed to by consensus or people may agree to a 3/4 majority, 2/3 or 51% majority depending on the subject and policy matter. But any objections should be resolved, and not suppress or overrule issues for convenience.

3. If people cannot agree on major issues, because of beliefs which govt cannot force anyone to adopt or to change, they should consider ways to separate funding and policies and democratize the process to avoid imposing on each other as long as people take responsibility for their differences and don't impose burdens or complications on others.

3. As for paying costs of separating and democratizing districts and programs, the restitution owed to taxpayers for past abuses can be assessed and used to justify refinancing govt to implement reforms that will generate and pay back the investment Costs over time. Again the reforms and refinancing should be set up by consensus to make sure all objections and corrections are included and agreed to.

All the parties I know have longstanding grievances against wasteful abuses by other party members. Redressing all those grievances and reimbursing Taxpayers the credits for debts and damages gives plenty of leverage and equity to finance reforms. Instead of arguing to charge taxpayers more or raise taxes on the wealthy, we can better unite and demand credit for past expenditures that we did not agree to pay.

I would put* Libertarians in charge of setting up a grand jury system for reimbursing Taxpayers fir contested debts and damages argued as Unconstitutional unauthorized or against the Code of Ethics * Greens in charge of Environmental and clean energy solutions reforms and corrections / restoration * Democrats in charge of fulfilling party platforms and promises of converting prisons systems into effective treatment centers and teaching hospitals to reduce and prevent crime and violence while financing universal care and facilities proportional to population demands per district * Republicans in charge of reforming VA, national security and military defense to be sustainable and address collateral damages and abuse / restitution for corruption of defense contracts and military spending * Constitutionalists and Independents to work out systems for teaching and training community leaders and businesses to support cooperative health care, economics and self govt, so any person or group not represent by the other major parties can have equal access and support to represent and govern themselves.

 

[emilynghiem]

We need an Iranian stance on LGBT issues.

Generally it never works to ask for a policy for others that you would never agree to be applied to you and your beliefs.

Equal Justice Under Law means the Golden Rule. Asking and respecting for others the level of rights freedoms liberty due process and protections you seek to enforce for yourself.

I seriously doubt you would ever agree to an Iranian policy like this applied to you and your beliefs

Confederate Soldier

 

[emilynghiem]

We need an Iranian stance on LGBT issues.

However, given that Jihadist terrorists or Wahabist and Zionist fundamentalists don't believe in due process or rules of engagement, it would be fair to hold "retributive justice" types to their own strong armed policies. That is getting the justice you ask for, ask these groups who want to impose fascist authoritarian dictates to be subject to their own brand of govt. And keep everyone else out of it who doesn't believe in unquestioned authority to impose punishment by decree.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

However, given that Jihadist terrorists or Wahabist and Zionist fundamentalists don't believe in due process or rules of engagement, it would be fair to hold "retributive justice" types to their own strong armed policies. That is getting the justice you ask for, ask these groups who want to impose fascist authoritarian dictates to be subject to their own brand of govt. And keep everyone else out of it who doesn't believe in unquestioned authority to impose punishment by decree.

Blah, blah, blah. TL,DR.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Confederate Soldier
Blah, blah, blah. TL,DR.

Just like that other poster who uses a lioness as her avatar (zangalewa or something like that) this vietnamese poster seems to be a lovely lady but she rambles like there was no tomorrow.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Dear The Progressive Patriot
Much the same way people respect other religious groups having rights to run their own sects, schools, services etc by the beliefs of those members, that's how I see where are Parties are heading.

We currently and historically have never allowed Hindus Muslims etc to form a majority in Congress and outvote dissenters to impose their groups beliefs

Yet we allow Parties to do what Religions are not allowed to do.

We already have a precedent for how we keep religious groups from legislating by majority vote or judicial Ruling.


The same way we let Parties run their own conventions and pass resolutions for their ownmembers, that's all I'm asking

Is we start treating and respecting party creeds platforms and agenda with the same standards we already apply to religious organizations that have their own biased beliefs and practices their members believe and have rights to practice

NOTE the most interesting difference between me and other Constitutionalists Is that I also and especially ask to treat Constitutionalism itself as a political belief system so it's treated equally as Statism, Liberalism, Anarchism Socialism Capitalism Communism Feminism Humanism Libertarianism etc etc.

All these should be voluntary practices so there is no abuse or oppression by any person or group of one creed infringing or imposing on another.


We already do this in the media and parties keeping people of like beliefs grouped together.

The problem always occurs when groups compete to impose on the public or each other. Again we already have plenty of precedence where Muslims decide their own policies, the Catholic church does, Jehovah's Witnesses and Jewish and Baptists don't agree what the Bible says or means, and we do not ever imagine an outside group can decide by majority to dictate for all other religious organizations what the common policy is going to be unilaterally.

All I'm asking is to recognize political beliefs creeds and ideologies (including Liberal Statism and Constitutional Libertarianism) as equal beliefs that parties cannot abuse govt to deny or disparage, impose or infringe upon, prohibit nor establish but which require consent of the members to ensure free exercise without coercion or fraud

First, though I'm obviously not PP I have one, so thanks for showing up and responding in some detail. Next, why José thinks you're Vietnamese beats the hell out of me? Not to mention, member zaangalewa who is obviously an opinionated German guy with many strange notions and one who loses much English language nuance in translation.

That said, what you ask is ridiculous on its face. Government exists because left to their own devices people just end up killing one another until the strongest individual forces compliance upon the rest. That system can only work for a very limited number, as it does only for a limited number of lions and gorillas.

Our advantage is that we're best adapted to solve problems simply through communication rather than violence. This requires secure places to meet in meaningful numbers and a willingness to do so. Being able to "meet" now on the interwebs remains too new for us to broadly accept as a workable alternative to traditional "government."

Now if, as you propose, every Tom, Dick, and Harriet with an "idea" of their own were to be invited and treated as an equal, proposing/voting member,.. you're just creating chaos again, inevitably ending up with the loudest, fittest, most arrogant asshole running the entire show and ignoring everyone other than their willing toadies.

Having everyone express their private take would take forever. Nothing would ever get done. Families can accommodate such things, peaceful communities require much more.

 

[martybegan]

The topic is Constitutionalism vs others views on Constitution interpretation Can you address that instead of just mindlessly whining about your fear of gay people?

It boils down to making up shit like in Roe and Obergfell being the primary "other view".

The biggest cause of conflict is substantive due process, made up to justify rulings that gave the court's majority what they wanted, as opposed to what was actually Constitutional.