Liberal Contempt for the Constitution

[Bfgrn]

Most liberals have accepted some ‘modern’ or populist view of the correct direction of society, without addressing either the provenance, or the prognosis if this path is followed.

1. Where do our laws begin? The answer is not open to conjecture: it is written in the Constitution itself.

“THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI.

2. Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, “In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: ‘I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly EVOLVING EXPERIENCE of the American people.’ …
“Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHIES OF OUR TIME. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the CONSTITUTION AS A DOCUMENT THAT CONFORMS PEOPLE TO UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES that promote their own and the general welfare.

3. Liberal scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTH”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work. “A well-known Harvard law professor,” Robert Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”

4. Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers. RADICAL LIBERAL CULTURE OFTEN HAS CONTEMPT OF HISTORY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The War Against the U.S. Constitution | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

5. Speaking directly to this point, the Tea Party folks have created a ‘Contract For America,’ the first item of which is the following, agreed to by over 82%:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent). Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News

since the constitution doesn't give us many rights at all I would be very careful of enforing any policy that denies people rights that are NOT listed in the constitution.

as fond of our founding fathers as I am I still must insist that
1. since they are lond dead
and
2. since they got so many things wrong (womans suffrage, slavery, the right to vote for nonlandowners)
and
3. since we have evolved/changed/matured/grown so much since their day

it is justifiable for those of us living today to decide for ourselves what kind of country we want to live in and what our rights and freedoms should be.


i prefer to NOT be forced to abide by rules and laws that are illogical, irrational and outdated

the people of EVERY age should have the right and freedom to decide for themselves

You must be the product of a public school 'education.'

"since they are lond dead..." Ah, that proves it.


The primary difference between out foundational law and that promulgated by progressives, is that they deny our 'inalienable rights' and give us only what they legislate.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

In the Progressives’ view, the law, by judicial action, determines what rights we have, and, therefore, natural rights are taken away.
Woodrow Wilson essay “Socialism and Democracy” ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’
The collective is not limited by individual rights.


"...those of us living today to decide for ourselves ..."
Herein lies the heart of the problem. Good folks, folks like you, have not been educated to understand what it is they are signing onto. Your post shows this.

I contend that if you understood the differences between what you claim to agree with, and what the founding documents actually imply, you would change your view in a hot New York second.

I contend that if you really understood what you 'claim' to understand; the SCOPE of Thomas Jefferson's understanding of 'natural law' and HIS intent when authoring the Declaration of Independence, you would cease making an ass out of yourself.

"I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self-evident: 'That the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;' that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it... We seem not to have perceived that by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independent nation to another." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:454, Papers 15:392

 

[PoliticalChic]

since the constitution doesn't give us many rights at all I would be very careful of enforing any policy that denies people rights that are NOT listed in the constitution.

as fond of our founding fathers as I am I still must insist that
1. since they are lond dead
and
2. since they got so many things wrong (womans suffrage, slavery, the right to vote for nonlandowners)
and
3. since we have evolved/changed/matured/grown so much since their day

it is justifiable for those of us living today to decide for ourselves what kind of country we want to live in and what our rights and freedoms should be.


i prefer to NOT be forced to abide by rules and laws that are illogical, irrational and outdated

the people of EVERY age should have the right and freedom to decide for themselves

You must be the product of a public school 'education.'

"since they are lond dead..." Ah, that proves it.


The primary difference between out foundational law and that promulgated by progressives, is that they deny our 'inalienable rights' and give us only what they legislate.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

In the Progressives’ view, the law, by judicial action, determines what rights we have, and, therefore, natural rights are taken away.
Woodrow Wilson essay “Socialism and Democracy” ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’
The collective is not limited by individual rights.


"...those of us living today to decide for ourselves ..."
Herein lies the heart of the problem. Good folks, folks like you, have not been educated to understand what it is they are signing onto. Your post shows this.

I contend that if you understood the differences between what you claim to agree with, and what the founding documents actually imply, you would change your view in a hot New York second.

I contend that if you really understood what you 'claim' to understand; the SCOPE of Thomas Jefferson's understanding of 'natural law' and HIS intent when authoring the Declaration of Independence, you would cease making an ass out of yourself.

"I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self-evident: 'That the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;' that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it... We seem not to have perceived that by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independent nation to another." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:454, Papers 15:392

Boring, you seem to be getting a bit upset...shouldn't you be used to getting destroyed in these debates?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Examples?

Let's start with the Patriot Act.

My friend, are you confusing President Bush with a Conservative? And is there a Conservative Congress you could point to?

I hope this is not going to require a definition of Conservative.

I'm aware that Bush is no conservative, at least if you define a conservative as someone who wants to shrink government. The problem with this definition, of course, is that nobody who wants to shrink government ever gets elected by the so-called conservative Republican Party. So the question becomes, where were all the "real conservatives" at when the Patriot Act was passed?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

..but the constitution has evolved. the founders and subsequent lawmakers have amended it 27 times.

i wonder if the neocon con-tract xx america has evolved. the first such document was full of hot-air conservatism.

Evolving what is actually in the document and evolving for convenience sake how we interpret it are two different things.

Madison and Hamilton, the two main authors of the US Constitution continually disagreed after the fact, on how to interpret the Constitution.

So. There is no answer to this age old question: How do we interpret the Constitution?

Any one who says their is one way to interpret the US Constitution, and infers the Founding Fathers agreed on this idiocy, is an ignoramus.

 

[Bfgrn]

You must be the product of a public school 'education.'

"since they are lond dead..." Ah, that proves it.


The primary difference between out foundational law and that promulgated by progressives, is that they deny our 'inalienable rights' and give us only what they legislate.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

In the Progressives’ view, the law, by judicial action, determines what rights we have, and, therefore, natural rights are taken away.
Woodrow Wilson essay “Socialism and Democracy” ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’
The collective is not limited by individual rights.


"...those of us living today to decide for ourselves ..."
Herein lies the heart of the problem. Good folks, folks like you, have not been educated to understand what it is they are signing onto. Your post shows this.

I contend that if you understood the differences between what you claim to agree with, and what the founding documents actually imply, you would change your view in a hot New York second.

I contend that if you really understood what you 'claim' to understand; the SCOPE of Thomas Jefferson's understanding of 'natural law' and HIS intent when authoring the Declaration of Independence, you would cease making an ass out of yourself.

"I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self-evident: 'That the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;' that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it... We seem not to have perceived that by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independent nation to another." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:454, Papers 15:392

Boring, you seem to be getting a bit upset...shouldn't you be used to getting destroyed in these debates?

Ah, the typical right wing pea brain faux victory dance...as you are getting your head covered in an ultra-conservative REgressive burka.

Irony...

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Federalism", "checks and balances", ''separation of church and state", etc, are not a verbatim part of the Constitution, but are inherently part of the spirit of it. PC wants originalism and strict construction to control the document's interpretation. That type of thinking got us the Civil War and the Civil Rights campaign. Nope, PC, the great majority is not going in that direction. Thinking conservatives, moderates, centrists, independents, libs, and leftists will not do it. Your way gets up Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. Not agonna happen again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's start with the Patriot Act.

My friend, are you confusing President Bush with a Conservative? And is there a Conservative Congress you could point to?

I hope this is not going to require a definition of Conservative.

I'm aware that Bush is no conservative, at least if you define a conservative as someone who wants to shrink government. The problem with this definition, of course, is that nobody who wants to shrink government ever gets elected by the so-called conservative Republican Party. So the question becomes, where were all the "real conservatives" at when the Patriot Act was passed?

"...define a conservative as someone who wants to shrink government." is one aspect, but how about we simply place conservative on one end of the spectrum, and progressive on the other.

I believe that if the American public is made aware of the stark differences between the two, conservativism has a good chance.

Wilson was the poster-boy for progressivism, and after a dose of same, this was the result of the next election:
Democrats (Progressives) were thoroughly rejected by the voters in the election of 1920.

“The United States presidential election of 1920 was dominated by the aftermath of World War I and the hostile reaction to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president. Harding's victory remains the largest popular-vote percentage margin (60.3% to 34.1%) in Presidential elections after the so-called "Era of Good Feelings" ended with the victory of James Monroe in the election of 1820. ” United States presidential election, 1920 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“In the 1920 election, he and his running-mate, Calvin Coolidge, defeated Democrat and fellow Ohioan James M. Cox, in what was then the largest presidential popular vote landslide in American history since the popular vote tally began to be recorded in 1824: 60.36% to 34.19%.”Warren G. Harding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One can only hope for a reprise.

 

[rikules]

Most liberals have accepted some ‘modern’ or populist view of the correct direction of society, without addressing either the provenance, or the prognosis if this path is followed.

1. Where do our laws begin? The answer is not open to conjecture: it is written in the Constitution itself.

“THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI.

2. Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, “In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: ‘I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly EVOLVING EXPERIENCE of the American people.’ …
“Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHIES OF OUR TIME. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the CONSTITUTION AS A DOCUMENT THAT CONFORMS PEOPLE TO UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES that promote their own and the general welfare.

3. Liberal scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTH”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work. “A well-known Harvard law professor,” Robert Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”

4. Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers. RADICAL LIBERAL CULTURE OFTEN HAS CONTEMPT OF HISTORY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The War Against the U.S. Constitution | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

5. Speaking directly to this point, the Tea Party folks have created a ‘Contract For America,’ the first item of which is the following, agreed to by over 82%:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent). Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News

since the constitution doesn't give us many rights at all I would be very careful of enforing any policy that denies people rights that are NOT listed in the constitution.

as fond of our founding fathers as I am I still must insist that
1. since they are lond dead
and
2. since they got so many things wrong (womans suffrage, slavery, the right to vote for nonlandowners)
and
3. since we have evolved/changed/matured/grown so much since their day

it is justifiable for those of us living today to decide for ourselves what kind of country we want to live in and what our rights and freedoms should be.


i prefer to NOT be forced to abide by rules and laws that are illogical, irrational and outdated

the people of EVERY age should have the right and freedom to decide for themselves

You must be the product of a public school 'education.'

"since they are lond dead..." Ah, that proves it.


The primary difference between out foundational law and that promulgated by progressives, is that they deny our 'inalienable rights' and give us only what they legislate.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

In the Progressives’ view, the law, by judicial action, determines what rights we have, and, therefore, natural rights are taken away.
Woodrow Wilson essay “Socialism and Democracy” ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’
The collective is not limited by individual rights.


"...those of us living today to decide for ourselves ..."
Herein lies the heart of the problem. Good folks, folks like you, have not been educated to understand what it is they are signing onto. Your post shows this.

I contend that if you understood the differences between what you claim to agree with, and what the founding documents actually imply, you would change your view in a hot New York second.

your immediate response with insults and denigrations is duly noted.

I stand by what I said

every generation should have the right to decide for itself what rules. laws, regulations, moral codes they will abide by.

our forefathers were wrong about many things

we KNOW that, now....

that being the case we (should) have the right to FIX their mistakes....

those of us living in 2010
and the people of 2050
and the people of 2100

should NOT be forced to abide by rules, laws, moral codes that they KNOW tyo bne illogical, irrational, or just plain WRONG.

giving a choice between establishing laws and moral codes based upon logic and reason

or establishing laws and moral codes based upon the dictates of long dead men who made some obvious mistakes...

I know which choice I'd make

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My friend, are you confusing President Bush with a Conservative? And is there a Conservative Congress you could point to?

I hope this is not going to require a definition of Conservative.

I'm aware that Bush is no conservative, at least if you define a conservative as someone who wants to shrink government. The problem with this definition, of course, is that nobody who wants to shrink government ever gets elected by the so-called conservative Republican Party. So the question becomes, where were all the "real conservatives" at when the Patriot Act was passed?

"...define a conservative as someone who wants to shrink government." is one aspect, but how about we simply place conservative on one end of the spectrum, and progressive on the other.

I believe that if the American public is made aware of the stark differences between the two, conservativism has a good chance.

Wilson was the poster-boy for progressivism, and after a dose of same, this was the result of the next election:
Democrats (Progressives) were thoroughly rejected by the voters in the election of 1920.

“The United States presidential election of 1920 was dominated by the aftermath of World War I and the hostile reaction to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president. Harding's victory remains the largest popular-vote percentage margin (60.3% to 34.1%) in Presidential elections after the so-called "Era of Good Feelings" ended with the victory of James Monroe in the election of 1820. ” United States presidential election, 1920 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“In the 1920 election, he and his running-mate, Calvin Coolidge, defeated Democrat and fellow Ohioan James M. Cox, in what was then the largest presidential popular vote landslide in American history since the popular vote tally began to be recorded in 1824: 60.36% to 34.19%.”Warren G. Harding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One can only hope for a reprise.

If we look at conservatism as one end of the spectrum, and progressivism as the opposite end then I don't see the chance you see for conservatism. Progressivism and neoconservatism have won the day over genuine conservatism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

since the constitution doesn't give us many rights at all I would be very careful of enforing any policy that denies people rights that are NOT listed in the constitution.

as fond of our founding fathers as I am I still must insist that
1. since they are lond dead
and
2. since they got so many things wrong (womans suffrage, slavery, the right to vote for nonlandowners)
and
3. since we have evolved/changed/matured/grown so much since their day

it is justifiable for those of us living today to decide for ourselves what kind of country we want to live in and what our rights and freedoms should be.


i prefer to NOT be forced to abide by rules and laws that are illogical, irrational and outdated

the people of EVERY age should have the right and freedom to decide for themselves

You must be the product of a public school 'education.'

"since they are lond dead..." Ah, that proves it.


The primary difference between out foundational law and that promulgated by progressives, is that they deny our 'inalienable rights' and give us only what they legislate.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

In the Progressives’ view, the law, by judicial action, determines what rights we have, and, therefore, natural rights are taken away.
Woodrow Wilson essay “Socialism and Democracy” ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’
The collective is not limited by individual rights.


"...those of us living today to decide for ourselves ..."
Herein lies the heart of the problem. Good folks, folks like you, have not been educated to understand what it is they are signing onto. Your post shows this.

I contend that if you understood the differences between what you claim to agree with, and what the founding documents actually imply, you would change your view in a hot New York second.

your immediate response with insults and denigrations is duly noted.

I stand by what I said

every generation should have the right to decide for itself what rules. laws, regulations, moral codes they will abide by.

our forefathers were wrong about many things

we KNOW that, now....

that being the case we (should) have the right to FIX their mistakes....

those of us living in 2010
and the people of 2050
and the people of 2100

should NOT be forced to abide by rules, laws, moral codes that they KNOW tyo bne illogical, irrational, or just plain WRONG.

giving a choice between establishing laws and moral codes based upon logic and reason

or establishing laws and moral codes based upon the dictates of long dead men who made some obvious mistakes...

I know which choice I'd make

I understand your sensitivity to my spotlighting your lack of erudition.

To reduce this to the single question, then, you are ".... stand[ing] by what I said..." that is, that we have no inalienable rights from our Creator, and, instead, have whatever rights a government grants us.

Yours, my friend, is the outlook of a subject, a servant, not a citizen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

(1) PC has started falling back on personal attack when she cannot handle the facts of the argument.

(2) Her argumentative ability lacks understanding of the sophistication and nuance of American constitutionalism.

(3) PC proved herself intellectually shallow in #30 above.

(4) She ignored that the Founders got quite a bit wrong.

PC is flatly wrong in the OP from the get go.

 

[PoliticalChic]

(1) PC has started falling back on personal attack when she cannot handled the facts of the argument.

(2) Her argumentative ability lacks understanding of the sophistication and nuance of American constitutionalism.

(3) PC proved herself intellectually shallow win #30 above.

(4) She ignored that the Founders got quite a bit wrong.

PC is flatly wrong in the OP from the get go.

When one can't bring anything to the table, this is the kind of post that allows one to claim, to use a synecdoche, skin in the game.

Congrats on producing one of the most insipid posts of the day.

 

[antagon]

the livin breathin concept is a reference to amendment power, then. that is for certain. i challenge that the scotus really reinterprets the constitution. i think that it considers new circumstances and lays a new disposition. the starkness that consitutional law is written is adapted to this purpose. other law, like statutes and taxes, even from the founders' era is written with more absolute effect.

Perhaps it's merely late on a friday, but this post seems to make no sense to me.

1. The "the livin breathin concept" has nothing to do with "amendment power." It is the total opposite. The reason for the creation of the idea of an evolving Constitution is that progressives wanted to change the founding document in ways that citizens could not be convinced to vote for.

2. Article V of the US Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

3. Progressivism was the first American political movement based primarily on the criticism and deconstruction of the Constitution. The Constitution provided the framework for limited government. The checks and balances, strictly interpreted, prevent such ideas as redistribution for ‘social justice,’ thus, the "living Constitution."

1. the country has changed since it was founded, perhaps to the credit of progressives, but not exclusively. because neocons dont like every such change, you make the case that the constitution wasnt drafted to accommodate it. to the contrary of your contention, democracy has lead the progressive agenda. the aim of neoconservatives such as yourself is to obstruct our democracy, and with the contention that the constitution cannot support the makings of a modern nation.

2.

3. the constitution limits government specifically. neoconservatives insist that other limitations should be read into its charter. nonsense. those limits are determined through the methods in the document, exclusively. those methods are judicial review, and legislative action which expresses the voter's mandate through the constitution's own election framework. your interpretation specifically scoffs at the results that the constitution's charter has helped to emplace with an unfounded opinion that the 18th century values of our some of our founders are the exclusive guides of government -- just sufficient to affect and endorse your politics.

if you want to work within the confines of the constitution, PC, you have to win an election with your homophone contract. otherwise, your methods of wrangling constitutional interpretation in your favor is hypocrisy in light of your accusation that's the progressive modus.

 

[antagon]

Examples?

Let's start with the Patriot Act.

My friend, are you confusing President Bush with a Conservative? And is there a Conservative Congress you could point to?

I hope this is not going to require a definition of Conservative.

this is typical goalpost shiftin neoconservative comedy. then, PC, you present a contract [insert preposition] america... again. is that conservative? sounds like it. but neoconservatives are all talk on conservatism. you're on the tax-cut teet and the entitlement teet at the same time. more fiscally volatile than any other agenda.

 

[ihopehefails]

I don't think it is fair to blame liberals alone for this because most politicians do that but I think its time to change things in this country for both parties.

 

[momonkey]

There certainly is liberal contempt for the Constitution, but let us not forget the conservative contempt for the Constitution as well.

Examples?

Let's start with the Patriot Act.

Senator Feingold voted against both the 2001 and 2006 versions of the Patriot Act.

He's the only one.

Obama, Clinton and Biden all voted in favor of the act both times.

Democrats in the House voted in favor of the 2001 act by more than a three to one margin.


Senate Vote Roll Call on U.S. Patriot Act 2001 & 2006

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Examples?

Let's start with the Patriot Act.

Senator Feingold voted against both the 2001 and 2006 versions of the Patriot Act.

He's the only one.

Obama, Clinton and Biden all voted in favor of the act both times.

Democrats in the House voted in favor of the 2001 act by more than a three to one margin.


Senate Vote Roll Call on U.S. Patriot Act 2001 & 2006

So it's your contention that the Patriot Act that was passed when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House is the fault of the Democratic Party?

 

[momonkey]

Let's start with the Patriot Act.

Senator Feingold voted against both the 2001 and 2006 versions of the Patriot Act.

He's the only one.

Obama, Clinton and Biden all voted in favor of the act both times.

Democrats in the House voted in favor of the 2001 act by more than a three to one margin.


Senate Vote Roll Call on U.S. Patriot Act 2001 & 2006

So it's your contention that the Patriot Act that was passed when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House is the fault of the Democratic Party?

Can you think of a better example of bi-partisan legislation?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Senator Feingold voted against both the 2001 and 2006 versions of the Patriot Act.

He's the only one.

Obama, Clinton and Biden all voted in favor of the act both times.

Democrats in the House voted in favor of the 2001 act by more than a three to one margin.


Senate Vote Roll Call on U.S. Patriot Act 2001 & 2006

So it's your contention that the Patriot Act that was passed when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House is the fault of the Democratic Party?

Can you think of a better example of bi-partisan legislation?

I'm sure that I could if I was so inclined. However, if the conservatives were opposed to the Patriot Act it wouldn't have happened. They controlled both chambers and the Presidency. Don't think I'm not aware that Democrats supported this legislation, but they don't pretend to be the party of limited government and fidelity to the Constitution.

 

[Father Time]

"3. Liberal scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTH”"

And your proof of that is what? Oh yeah ONE harvard law proffesor, as if being a Harvard law proffesor automatically makes one a liberal scholar, or even a liberal for that matter.

You wanna see people who don't like the Constitution how about those who want to pretend we can ignore it during wartime as long as it makes us safe from 'dem terrorists'.

How about those who want to ban flag burning because they're "offended", a great way to honor the first eh?