Calling Opposition Absolute Terrorists Is An American Tradition

[Dante]

Calling Opposition Absolute Terrorists Is An American Tradition.

Call me a liar. Go ahead. That's Also an American tradition.

We have Tea Party types and their defenders accusing Dante and others of being low lifes for calling the Tea Party Attendees and their ilk, terrorists. Would anyone want to know what our Founding Fathers called each other during their battles over Federalists control vs Democratic-Republican control?

John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, was a distant cousin of Thomas Jefferson. They were political opponents. Jefferson asked his cousin, the Chief Justice, to swear him into office as President. John Marshall kept a diary of the events. In it he wrote that "The democrats are divided into speculative theorists and absolute terrorists," and he observed "With the latter I am not disposed to class Mr. Jefferson." - The Supreme Court/Jeffrey Rosen


I love watching the show put on by the great unwashed, the general public, America's democratic ignorati.

To see Tea Party types here at USMB hide behind the colonial revolutionaries, while whining like stuck pigs when they get attacked with phrases straight out of the mouths of those very same colonial revolutionaries...phrases the colonials used against each other as they formed our nation...it's almost too precious to witness.

I and others have been attacked by semi-literate pseudo-intellectuals and arm chair historians with no sense of where we come from--excepting what they were force fed in a civics class or a Tea Party rally.



pardon, the flame mixed in with the information, but how could any man resist? This is not a flame thread. This thread will be an informative one. Think of it as a free education from good old uncle Dante. Dante, the true American patriot.


dD

 

[Dante]

Marbury vs Madison. thank the gods for Marshall and the small mindedness of men like Thomas Jefferson. It it weren't for the immediate gains and the small minded pettiness of Jefferson wanting to beat Adams and the Federalists, we might not have a strong national government.

Without a string central government what would Lincoln have done during war, what would Wilson have done prior to WWI, what would FDR have been left to do prior to the US officially getting into the fight during WWII?

Now we have Tea Party types who are unclear and ignorant of our history, screaming for a reenactment of a battle we had a few centuries ago? A battle their heroes lost. A battle that would have left us woefully unprepared to do battle with modern states and their aggression..the threats to our nation interests. Small minded and ignorant are the Tea Party types.

To borrow from Jefferey Rosen's book, do the Tea Party types want to do battle over---States' rights?---The rule of local majorities over a national government?---The idea that "constitutional questions should be decided by elected legislatures rather than by unelected judges?" really?

It is for reasons like this that I oppose the populist nitwitticisms of the Tea Party movement.

 

[Dante]

We have politicians using the ignorance of the general public's knowledge about the courts, to further an agenda that's all about party over principle or national good.

You have the clueless asking Republicans to http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/110544-time-for-republican-to-take-some-responsibility.html as if principles guided the last elections in recent memory.

The latest scam is announcing with great fanfare the filing of lawsuits in federal court in what is laughingly a faux cause about the role of government. These law suits are all about party control, not principle. A percentage of the public is scared and angry and unhappy is this is where demogogues and shysters step in. False promises and false hopes. Look at what happened during the last few elections: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/110544-time-for-republican-to-take-some-responsibility.html

Time for some perspective...

"It would be surprising if the (Supreme Court) says Congress can't regulate people who are participating in the $1 trillion health-care market," said David Freeman Engstrom, a Stanford University Law School professor. "The lawsuit probably doesn't have legs both as a matter of precedent and as a matter of common sense."

Sanford Levinson, a University of Texas Law School professor, said that Americans who choose not to purchase health insurance can pay a fine under the new law. Congress, he said, clearly has the authority to levy taxes and fines.

"As a technical matter, it's been set up as a tax," Levinson said of the penalties under the health-care law. "The argument about constitutionality is, if not frivolous, close to it," he said.

"You'd have to imagine that the five conservative Republicans on the Supreme Court will be willing to invalidate the most important piece of social legislation in 50 years on the basis of a highly tendentious and controversial reading of the Constitution."

Read more: Experts say states' health care lawsuits don't stand a chance | McClatchy