Choose: Progressives or the Constitution

[NYcarbineer]

So saith the loser.

It doesn't elevate you to make claims on a message board and then run away from a debate on them as soon as they are challenged by someone. That is as common as dirt on a farm.

I graciously accepted your capitulation earlier....what more do you want.

I want to know why you won't debate the points you bring up. Yes, I know you have no obligation to, but I'm still curious why you won't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It doesn't elevate you to make claims on a message board and then run away from a debate on them as soon as they are challenged by someone. That is as common as dirt on a farm.

I graciously accepted your capitulation earlier....what more do you want.

I want to know why you won't debate the points you bring up. Yes, I know you have no obligation to, but I'm still curious why you won't.

I've destroyed you on the point of my OP.

Destroyed.

No one has been able to deny that the amendment process is the only legitimate way to change the Constitution.


Now....why is it you won't explain the significance of the word 'penumbra' in this debate?
Why?


Because it eviscerates any argument you have.

 

[edthecynic]

Why must you insist on proving what a fool you are.....??

Trust me on this: it's evident to all.

The OP is about the amendment process, and announced that the Founders realized the Constitution could have flaws.



Yes...that is in the OP.

The fool is the one who worships a "flawed" god!!!!
That's YOU!

So we are back to the fact that Justices are no more or less "flawed" than the Constitution or the Founders and therefore no more or less "godly."
Get it?

Isn't it lucky that the Founders provided the amendment process to take care of those flaws.

Brilliant, huh?

That's because they knew there would be idiots like you who would be stupid enough to worship the flawed Constitution like a god!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The fool is the one who worships a "flawed" god!!!!
That's YOU!

So we are back to the fact that Justices are no more or less "flawed" than the Constitution or the Founders and therefore no more or less "godly."
Get it?

Isn't it lucky that the Founders provided the amendment process to take care of those flaws.

Brilliant, huh?

That's because they knew there would be idiots like you who would be stupid enough to worship the flawed Constitution like a god!

Why do I have the sense that guillotining you would make only an aesthetic difference?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Left is willing to endow both the Constitution, and the Court, itself, with powers, rights, responsibilities that do not, in reality, exist.

Here, from the Washington Post is the view of the Supreme Court, from the Left.

"But the court's first full examination of whether the right to marry must be extended to same-sex couples puts on full display the court's official responsibility as arbiter of the Constitution, as well as its unofficial role as interpreter of the nation's readiness for social change."
Supreme Court has many options on gay marriage | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram


".... role as interpreter of the nation's readiness for social change."

Really?

Can you imagine?
This from a political perspective that, daily, shouts that God is imaginary and since we cannot see Him....he doesn't exist.


How's this for a novel approach:
...allow the citizenry, wherein real social change, and political rectitude, abides, to be the arbiter.

 

[bripat9643]

If we stipulate that yes the actual wording of the text of the Constitution can't be changed without an amendment,

could we then get back to what's relevant about judicial decisions and how they change consitutional law without changing the actual text?

There’s really no cause to ‘stipulate’ anything, as that was never at issue.

Judicial review doesn’t ‘change’ the Constitution, to argue it does is ignorant.

The point of judicial review is to tell disputants who is right and who is wrong. That's all.

That's the intent. The reality is something different. The Supreme Court often invents law from whole cloth. Its ruling that Obamacare is a tax is a classic example.

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmm... a false dilema fallacy. Don't see those very often.


Being a modern humane state vs. following the supposed whims of dead slave-owners from 200 years ago.

Gee, that's a tough one.

It appears that the concepts involved in this thread are over your head.

Too bad you never studied history.

You mean other than that degree the University of Illinois gave me in history?

Ummm... yeah.

The thing is, you guys treat the writing of the Founding Slave Rapists like they are some kind of holy writ. They weren't. They were an Aristocracy trying to establish independence. Nothing more, nothing less.

If they had lost, we'd be Canadians, and we'd be just as free as we are now.

Slavery would have been abolished without a civil war.

We'd have single payer health care instead of the abortion we have now.

I just can't see these things as anything but positive developments.

The Constitution is the law. It should be treated as such and not just as a list of suggestions.

You hatred of the Founding Fathers is duly noted.

Next you'll be boasting how your views are the same ones this country was founded on.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Choose: Progressives or the Constitution

I'm sure someone has (already) rubbed-your-nose, in this, but....The Constitution was WRITTEN by Progressives!

October 11, 2011

The Constitution Is Inherently Progressive​

"So why do conservatives continue to insist that progressives are opposed to constitutional values and American traditions? Primarily because progressives since the late 19th century rejected the conservative interpretation of the Constitution as an unchangeable document that endorses laissez-faire capitalism and prohibits government efforts to provide a better existence for all Americans.

Progressives rightly charge that conservatives often mask social Darwinism and a dog-eat-dog mentality in a cloak of liberty, ignoring the needs of the least well-off and the nation as a whole.

As President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his 1944 address to Congress, “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. ‘Necessitous men are not free men.’ People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”

 

[JoeB131]

[

The Constitution is the law. It should be treated as such and not just as a list of suggestions.

You hatred of the Founding Fathers is duly noted.

Next you'll be boasting how your views are the same ones this country was founded on.

Nope, I'd never say that.

This country was founded on the concept of a lot of rich guys not wanting to pay their fair share in taxes for policies that benefitted them. Had it not been for British support during the French and Indian War (Or as it was called in Europe, the Seven Years War) French and Native Americans would have pushed the English Colonists into the ocean.

But shit, when the Crown came along with the bill, suddenly all these rich slave-owners started pleading poverty and whining about being over-taxed.

And this is really kind of the underlying mental retardation of American life. We really expect government benefit without having to pay for it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Please, conservatives worship at the altar of St. Ronnie every day. Truth is your side has not had many great leaders. I liked Eisenhower but that's about it.

Don't forget about Teddy Roosevelt!

Even the blue-hairs, at The Heritage Foundation....

....give him credit!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The Constitution is one of the most PROGRESSIVE documents ever created.

Progress eventually tramples over every barrier Conservatism throws in its path.

And you're as dunce.

You seem to be very ignorant of our history

Hey....you know....bubbleheads....whattayagonnado?

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZY188bNw4Y]Sarah Palin Can't Name Any Founding Fathers! - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The points the OP makes in the opening post are simply carryovers from another thread where all her nonsensical ideas got comprehensively demolished.

That happens......a LOT.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ALsjhDDdaA]Sarah Palin ABC Interview With Charlie Gibson Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAlxUChYpj4]Sarah Palin ABC Interview With Charlie Gibson Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmcZG87Fmxc]Ann Coulter, Canada, & Vietnam - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And you're as dunce.

I realize that one of your meager sources of gratification in your otherwise drab and wretched life is to engage in mutual insulturbation with posters on message boards,

but please, try to leave me out of it. There are plenty here who swing that way. Molest them.

If you want to prove that the Constitution at the time of its framing was a conservative, not a progressive document, by all means give it a try.

You can start by showing us how the Constitution was more conservative than the Articles of Confederation.

Your amazing inability to determine the subject can only be compared to the skills of the protagonist in the classic “Horton Hears a Who!”

....No doubt, another literary work-of-art headed for.....

....Lil' Dumbya's
HOUSE O' LEGACY-REPAIRShttp://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755884/#51376120

 

[JoeB131]

Shaman, everyone has you on ignore for a reason.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Classic Liberalism is a term made up by Conservatives. It's a little like Compassionate Conservative without the hilarity.

 

[regent]

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages, and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought." General Douglas MacArthur

 

[PoliticalChic]

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages, and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought." General Douglas MacArthur

You do understand that the classical liberals...the founders.....would be what are known as conservatives today.

The communist John Dewey went to a great deal of trouble to change the name of the socialists to 'liberal'...and the trick seems to have fooled a great many folks....

...you're not one, are you, reggie?