Liberal Contempt for the Constitution

[JakeStarkey]

Just remember who the elitist is.

And after that, please explain why the framers of the Constitution disagreed over what it meant.

Elitists are those who consider themselves to be superior to others--morally, intellectually, philosophically, politically, socially.

The "some"--that's some and not all Progressives demonstrate that they have not studied the debates, thoughts, counsel of the Founders when they dramatically misrepresent them. They pick up erroneous concepts or flat out lies off other websites and repost them without bothering to check for accuracy.

That is not elitism. Nor is that condemnation. It is simply an observation. Not one of us has not misquoted somebody or something or gotten facts wrong at some point or another. Such points to human fallability, not to any kind of inate evil. It happens. And sometimes we just see things differently and don't agree. I run into that with my more conservative friends all the time as none of us agree on every single point of every issue.

Nor did the Founders. They were fallible human beings too and none claimed to be saints. And, as all people do, they debated and deliberated and argued and wrote and rewrote and revised and amended again and again those concepts that eventually made their way into the Constitution. And sometimes it required compromise to reach agreement on a phrase or clause that all could agree to support.

But because they were of one mind wanting to get it right--to produce a document that would do the job--they came up with the most brilliant concept of government the world has ever known. And it worked pretty much as they thought it should, and it has stood the test of time.

"Elitists are those who consider themselves to be superior to others--morally, intellectually, philosophically, politically, socially."


let's see...

who today thinks of themselves as superior to others -
morally, intellectually, philosophically, politically, socially.....
?


could it be.....conservatives?

Label it correctly, please: "reactionaries" like foxfyre, political chic, and so many more here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just remember who the elitist is.

And after that, please explain why the framers of the Constitution disagreed over what it meant.

Elitists are those who consider themselves to be superior to others--morally, intellectually, philosophically, politically, socially.

The "some"--that's some and not all Progressives demonstrate that they have not studied the debates, thoughts, counsel of the Founders when they dramatically misrepresent them. They pick up erroneous concepts or flat out lies off other websites and repost them without bothering to check for accuracy.

That is not elitism. Nor is that condemnation. It is simply an observation. Not one of us has not misquoted somebody or something or gotten facts wrong at some point or another. Such points to human fallability, not to any kind of inate evil. It happens. And sometimes we just see things differently and don't agree. I run into that with my more conservative friends all the time as none of us agree on every single point of every issue.

Nor did the Founders. They were fallible human beings too and none claimed to be saints. And, as all people do, they debated and deliberated and argued and wrote and rewrote and revised and amended again and again those concepts that eventually made their way into the Constitution. And sometimes it required compromise to reach agreement on a phrase or clause that all could agree to support.

But because they were of one mind wanting to get it right--to produce a document that would do the job--they came up with the most brilliant concept of government the world has ever known. And it worked pretty much as they thought it should, and it has stood the test of time.

"Elitists are those who consider themselves to be superior to others--morally, intellectually, philosophically, politically, socially."


let's see...

who today thinks of themselves as superior to others -
morally, intellectually, philosophically, politically, socially.....
?


could it be.....conservatives?

Guilty as charged.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PoliticalChic is not a conservative; she is a reactionary.

You guys are not conservatives, foxfyre and political chic. You are reactionaries trying to revise history. Constitutional history did not stop on 1 January 1801. Either you are ignorant (uneducated), mentally feeble, or motivated by political and cultural bias you can't control.

"The points of disagreement among the Framers as to what the Constitution meant were very minor and very limited." Representation? Big State v. Small State? Federalists v. Anti-Federalists? Incredibly close ratification votes in the three largest (population) states (MASS, VA, NY)? Federalists vs. Republicans? Hamilton's economic nationalism? Burr shooting Hamilton? Federalism? Separation of Powers? Checks and Balances? Separation of Church and State? The friggin' Civil War because the South thought they were the true heirs of the Founders?

For shame, for shame. No wonder America despises the minority who think your way.

 

[antagon]

I'll rephrase:


How can there only be one correct interpretation of the Constitution when the Framers themselves did not agree?

Straw man.

On what basis do you claim only "be one correct interpretation of the Constitution"


Under discussion is whether or not the concept of " living Constitution" is consistent with the views of the Founders.

despite the neocon reflex to call valid arguments straw men and red herrings, or to label those presenting them liars, maybe you could reconcile the idea that living justices are meant to shed their interpretation on the document with the concept living consitution.

oh. i forgot about the grammar nazi approach, the goalpost shifting and the ignore list.

wonder which you'll use next?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your post was merely silly, PC. You truly need to think before you write. Right now, you are merely for chuckles and grins.

Jakey, I read your post: this is not the Department of Redundancy Department.

As usual, you add nothing to the conversation, merely comment as though you are actually knowledgeable enough to write a critique.

In actuality, you should be banished to the kiddie table.

Sorry, but that is the sad truth.

You are hardcore reactionary with an agenda to revise American history, period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'll rephrase:


How can there only be one correct interpretation of the Constitution when the Framers themselves did not agree?

Straw man.

On what basis do you claim only "be one correct interpretation of the Constitution"


Under discussion is whether or not the concept of " living Constitution" is consistent with the views of the Founders.

despite the neocon reflex to call valid arguments straw men and red herrings, or to label those presenting them liars, maybe you could reconcile the idea that living justices are meant to shed their interpretation on the document with the concept living consitution.

oh. i forgot about the grammar nazi approach, the goalpost shifting and the ignore list.

wonder which you'll use next?

Until PC can address honestly and squarely the constitutional arguments from the convention through ratification to the election of Jefferson, she truly has nothing relevant to add.

She is a hardcore reactionary with a wrongheaded agenda.

 

[antagon]

Got any meat?

U.S. v. Butler.

1...Both Madison and Hamilton agreed on the narrow construction, i.e. that the taxes should be related to other enumerated powers... until after ratification.

6. The Roberts decision in US v Butler allows that tax receipts can be used to cover 'general welfare' requirements....

1.wouldn't the construction of the constitution only become an issue after the ratification in the first place?

6. the roberts decision does more. it acknowledges each of the aforementioned framer's positions on the application of the tax and spend, then affirmed the hamiltonian look.

8. Progressive jurists such as Roscoe Pound and others...

was r. pound on the butler panel?

 

[antagon]

Straw man.

On what basis do you claim only "be one correct interpretation of the Constitution"


Under discussion is whether or not the concept of " living Constitution" is consistent with the views of the Founders.

despite the neocon reflex to call valid arguments straw men and red herrings, or to label those presenting them liars, maybe you could reconcile the idea that living justices are meant to shed their interpretation on the document with the concept living consitution.

oh. i forgot about the grammar nazi approach, the goalpost shifting and the ignore list.

wonder which you'll use next?

Until PC can address honestly and squarely the constitutional arguments from the convention through ratification to the election of Jefferson, she truly has nothing relevant to add.

She is a hardcore reactionary with a wrongheaded agenda.

the kid's just another victim of righteousness: when you think your shit don't stink, you always blame the next guy when you rip one. she still cant answer to her own contempt for the processes in the constitution, despite liberally criticizing progressives acting in accordance with these processes.

i could tolerate reactionaries. sourgrapes reactionary hypocrites (aka neocons) take it too far.

 

[Father Time]

Your post was merely silly, PC. You truly need to think before you write. Right now, you are merely for chuckles and grins.

Jakey, I read your post: this is not the Department of Redundancy Department.

As usual, you add nothing to the conversation, merely comment as though you are actually knowledgeable enough to write a critique.

In actuality, you should be banished to the kiddie table.

Sorry, but that is the sad truth.

The irony of this post is just stunning. Truly stunning.

 

[Father Time]

6. Woodrow Wilson is the posterboy for Progressivism.

How often are you going to keep claiming this without backing it up?

My exegesis has been clearly documented.

While I can have sympathy for your lack of comprehension, I cannot be responsible for its remediation.

I've all ready addressed that, it's not my fault you choose to ignore it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

despite the neocon reflex to call valid arguments straw men and red herrings, or to label those presenting them liars, maybe you could reconcile the idea that living justices are meant to shed their interpretation on the document with the concept living consitution.

oh. i forgot about the grammar nazi approach, the goalpost shifting and the ignore list.

wonder which you'll use next?

Until PC can address honestly and squarely the constitutional arguments from the convention through ratification to the election of Jefferson, she truly has nothing relevant to add.

She is a hardcore reactionary with a wrongheaded agenda.

the kid's just another victim of righteousness: when you think your shit don't stink, you always blame the next guy when you rip one. she still cant answer to her own contempt for the processes in the constitution, despite liberally criticizing progressives acting in accordance with these processes.

i could tolerate reactionaries. sourgrapes reactionary hypocrites (aka neocons) take it too far.

The inability to critically think on her part as well as recognizing that her unregulated bias undermines her argumentation are what gets me going. I can tolerate open debate that is objective. The a priori approach of her type of reactionary philosophy (and, yes, I know some lefties who do that ~ a kinswoman of mine comes to mind) ~ this simply undermines the Republic.

We need the debate of informed and educated, a free sharing of ideas and ideals openly and objectively, to make the best of democratic decision making. Right now, it is just screaming from the far right.

 

[antagon]

I realize I used some two and three syllable words in my previous post so I'll try to simplify it a bit for you in one syllable words.

They did not all think as one man and each thought his own thoughts.

None lived the same life.

None were taught to see one point of view as the one right point of view.

None were trained not to think.

And on all the big points they did agree.

(Okay I did use one two syllable word there but it was a short one.)

i say that there were a few points that the framers did disagree on. i dont know how you term big from small, but we might both agree that by the 20th century, these disagreements came to a head, and the issues were larger and being put through their paces to an extent greater than what the founders had debated, specifically, over 100 years prior.

the founder's contentions were aired out and weighed often in the progressive era. the scholars at that task didn't lump the opinions in one. how does your hindsight merge them so?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I realize I used some two and three syllable words in my previous post so I'll try to simplify it a bit for you in one syllable words.

They did not all think as one man and each thought his own thoughts.

None lived the same life.

None were taught to see one point of view as the one right point of view.

None were trained not to think.

And on all the big points they did agree.

(Okay I did use one two syllable word there but it was a short one.)

i say that there were a few points that the framers did disagree on. i dont know how you term big from small, but we might both agree that by the 20th century, these disagreements came to a head, and the issues were larger and being put through their paces to an extent greater than what the founders had debated, specifically, over 100 years prior.

the founder's contentions were aired out and weighed often in the progressive era. the scholars at that task didn't lump the opinions in one. how does your hindsight merge them so?

An agenda-driven reactionary program of action, darn all the contrasting evidence. That is clearly foxfyre, politicalchic, and others' methodology.

 

[westwall]

Hello,

As I stated I think the terms are outdated to the point that no one truly knows what they mean anymore. Collectivist and Individualist are simple terms that describe instantly what the person believes.

As you have probably figured out by now I am an individualist. That being said I do believe that we as a society have a social contract wherein those who are unable to take care of themselves should be provided for by those who can. That is what makes us human.

What I don't believe in however are 4 generation welfare families. Welfare is simply slavery revisited only they don't have to work. Conversely they don't really get to improve themselves either. The welfare systm is set up to punish those who would make the attempt to get out of the system. They are trapped.

I fin it amazing that during the Great Depression no one starved...and no one tells us how that happened. I will tell you how..the churches stepped in and fed the poor and dissolute.
The collectivists try to destroy the churches (BTW I am an agnostic) by pointing out every instance of the Catholic child abuse cases (rightly so I might add) however they then through their collectivist teachers unions protect teachers who do the same. The collectivist judges do not imprison for life the convicted child rapists in our midst. Do you not see a problem here?

So no my defintions of collectivists and individualists are not a stretch. A simple survey through a few dozen history books (and of course the newspapers) will show you what I speak of.

There is a fundamental problem with the term liberal and conservative. A conservative is a person who believes in an individualistic centered government. In other words the government has very little power over the individual while the individual has great power over the government. And appropriately the individual is responsible for his or her welfare. They are beholden to none.

Liberalism is the antithesis of that philosophy. instead the government has vast powers to control the individual and the individual is at the mercy of that government. It is a collectivist mentality. Fascism, communisim, and socialism are all examples of a collectivist government. Fabian Socialists try to hide that fact by calling communists "leftists" and fascsists "rightwingers" but when you compare their relationships with their subjects they are basically the same. No rights and no responsibilities..unless you are member of the ruling class.

One other fundamental difference between a collectivist society and an individualist society is how the soldiers are viewed. In a collectivist society you are expected to die for the country which is why Russia suffered 25 million casualties during WWII, people were cheaper than equipment so they were used up to preserve the equipment wherever possible. The steppes saw some of the worst examples of that where the NKVD would round up villages and have them charge across the open field to make the German machineguns run out of bullets.

For comparison Germany suffered approximately 3 million dead, Italy around 400,000 (and they surrendered in 1943), Japan over 2 million as they did not keep track of civilian deaths in any meaningful way. But the western allies suffered much less. The UK lost around 400,000, the US lost 360,000, France lost around 200,000. So if I was in a war I know which side I would want to be on.

In an individualistic society however if a soldier dies for his or her country we are grateful for their sacrafice and try to limit that sacrafice wherever possible as is clearly demonstrated by the casualty figures.

One other thing that most no one knows is that after the Russian POWs were freed from the German camps they were immediatly sent to the gulags because they had been "tainted by the west" according to Stalin. And lets not forget the 80 MILLION that he killed in the gulags before WWII had even started. And then of cousre there is China where demographers estimate that Mao had 150 MILLION killed during the Culteral Revolution. Yep give me a good collectivist government any time..

welcome, westwall, it is cool to see someone who makes posts with some gravity. it is troubling, however, that you seem to be another poster who has bought into the religious fuhrer that has overtaken the concepts of conservative and liberal.

i remember more traditional and simpler definitions of the term conservative. it could be summed up as spending and taking less money. liberal, you are right, is the opposite.

aren't your stretches about collectivism and all that bullshit? this need to make conservatism out to a whole set of ideals about individualism (for you) collective morality (for others), etc. has made it impossible to trust conservatives to spend less bux. that's it. now, they pack an expensive agenda of hardly individualist pet-projects, and the original meaning is long lost.

 

[westwall]

You are only partially correct. I agree that the closing of the mental health facilities was a terrible mistake. However the vast majority of the prison population is made up of non-violent drug offenders. The drug war is a war on civil liberties not drugs. For my evidence I give you the simple fact that to date the governemnt has spent well over a trillion dollars and the quantity of drugs on the street has gone up as has the quality. This does not count the thousands of innocent victims murdered by drug gangs and dealers fighting for their territory. Many of those gangs are illegal immigrants from Mexico and further south The last three murders in my area were perpetrated by illegal aliens and this is a fairly non violent area.

The other medical costs you can blame on trial lawyers. A doctor today has a 200,000 nut to crack just for his malpractice insurance. That is insane. Tort reform would be the greatest benefit to the public as far as reduction of medical costs across the board. Also you need to remove the anti trust exemption granted to the insurance companies. When they have to compete we win. What most collectivists simply don't understand is that government regualtion of business benefits the large corporations. It hurts and often times kills the small business owner. Just look around. Go to any city in the US and you will see the same Wal-Marts and Costco's and all the others. Guess what they destroyed the small busineses in those areas.

Everytime a new law comes into being the big corporation details a clerk to deal with that particular law and the small business person either has to hire someone to handle it or go out of business. And you pay. We do not have a true capatalistic society anymore. Instead whenever you see some new regulation it is coming from the big corporations buying the politicians with their lobbyists to pass the legislation that will put their competition out of business.

Westwall, the insane are on the streets in the name of Reagan privatization and mental health outpatient treatment. The idea was that private business could perform these services more cheaply and humanely. In fact, they have done the exact opposite. Also consider the state of private prison populations (a 500% growth in forty years), elder care, and foster care. In the name of Reagan, greedy and unconscionable Americans have predated on the weakest of all Americans.

 

[rdean]

These descriptions of Liberals is so bizarre and outrageously weird.

I like to point out that only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% conservative for a reason. The fact that the vast majority of scientists are Democrats and Liberals proves that liberals are thoughtful and focused, dedicated and hard working people with a remarkable work ethic.

Then to suggest it's the liberals who are violent. When you look at this country for the last 50 years. The violence from the right far outweighs anything from the left. You have the southern lynchings and Jim Crow laws. Violence against gays. Keep women in the kitchen. Timothy McVeigh. The Branch Davidians. Jim Jones. The Mormon child brides. Anything that is extreme Bible makes it far right.

And these Republican administrations, Reagan, Bush, Bush, they are awful. They follow conservative principals and when they fail, instead of Republicans demonstrating an iota of "introspection", they rant that those administrations weren't "real" conservatives.

And the insistence that they have "morals and values" and they are patriotic. It's sickening. Kicking their own children out into the street? This fetish with the gays has got to stop. Katrina and 9/11 the fault of gays and feminists? That's crazy.

The conservative philosophy is violence, hate, judgement against others, accusations, and lies. Oh the lies. They are the lying-est bunch of people ever. They lie about everything. And not just "little white lies". Lies that dragged us into a war. Lies about other Americans. Lies about liberals. Just lies. And what's worse, the lies are crazy. Obama is the antichrist? Obama is a fascist?

Republicans have gone completely nuts. Totally crazy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hello,

As I stated I think the terms are outdated to the point that no one truly knows what they mean anymore. Collectivist and Individualist are simple terms that describe instantly what the person believes.

Well you would be right about that so far as the Liberal/Progressives are concerned. They resent any effort to define their ideology or methodology.

I disagree that Conservatives do not know what the term means in Modern America. And while there is a broad scope of opinion and concepts included, it all basically boils down to a concept that Conservatives want government to secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to form whatever society they wish to have.

As you have probably figured out by now I am an individualist. That being said I do believe that we as a society have a social contract wherein those who are unable to take care of themselves should be provided for by those who can. That is what makes us human.

That would make you a Conservative IF you hold the view that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless, but believes that this is the individual's duty and responsibility. He believe that a government who confiscates wealth from one individual in order to give to another will invariably corrupt itself as well as those to whom it disbuses the benefits.

What I don't believe in however are 4 generation welfare families. Welfare is simply slavery revisited only they don't have to work. Conversely they don't really get to improve themselves either. The welfare systm is set up to punish those who would make the attempt to get out of the system. They are trapped.

This is also a modern American conservative belief.

I find it amazing that during the Great Depression no one starved...and no one tells us how that happened. I will tell you how..the churches stepped in and fed the poor and dissolute.

And they still do as well as hundreds of other private organizations who do yeomans' work to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, minister to the sick and those in prison. Most modern American Conservatives believe that is what we are supposed to do.

The collectivists try to destroy the churches (BTW I am an agnostic) by pointing out every instance of the Catholic child abuse cases (rightly so I might add) however they then through their collectivist teachers unions protect teachers who do the same. The collectivist judges do not imprison for life the convicted child rapists in our midst. Do you not see a problem here?

With a little softening of the edges on that, you would fall under the Liberal/Progressive umbrella who want government to be the dispenser of all wealth and benefits.

So no my defintions of collectivists and individualists are not a stretch. A simple survey through a few dozen history books (and of course the newspapers) will show you what I speak of.

You sir, so far are a solid modern American conservative by my definition, and I respect whatever term by which you prefer to refer to yourself.

And welcome to A2K. I hope you find happy home here.

 

[Madeline]

You guys are not conservatives, foxfyre and political chic. You are reactionaries trying to revise history. Constitutional history did not stop on 1 January 1801. Either you are ignorant (uneducated), mentally feeble, or motivated by political and cultural bias you can't control.

"The points of disagreement among the Framers as to what the Constitution meant were very minor and very limited." Representation? Big State v. Small State? Federalists v. Anti-Federalists? Incredibly close ratification votes in the three largest (population) states (MASS, VA, NY)? Federalists vs. Republicans? Hamilton's economic nationalism? Burr shooting Hamilton? Federalism? Separation of Powers? Checks and Balances? Separation of Church and State? The friggin' Civil War because the South thought they were the true heirs of the Founders?

For shame, for shame. No wonder America despises the minority who think your way.

I agree. And here's another point to ponder:

The list of people who can be viewed as " Founders" depends upon who you ask. Some think the list is only 10 names long.

The U.S. Founding Fathers: Who Were These Guys? | Britannica Blog

Others think that the list is as long as 13 people, 2 of whom did not even help to write the constitution (Thomas Jefferson and John Adams):

WikiAnswers - Who were the Founding Fathers

Some think the list is over 150 names long, and includes all the signatories to the constitution and declaration of independence. Trust me, there are obscure signatories, about whom we have zero historical record as to what they thought about anything.

So even after you get done claiming the Vulcan mind-meld trick with whomever you choose to believe was a "Founder", you have still got to argue with everyone who does not agree with your list.

"Intent of the Founders" is nothing but fancy double-talk for "Change is bad". The constitution is a revered document in large part because each word, sentence and paragragh is capable of conveying meaning WITHOUT having to ponder "gee, I wonder what they meant?" That is hardly the same thing as saying "gee, I wonder how this applies on these news facts?"

Get. A. Library. Card.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'll rephrase:


How can there only be one correct interpretation of the Constitution when the Framers themselves did not agree?

Ask yourself this. How often have you heard a conservative around here defend a Supreme Court decision as the correct one, even though the conservative did not personally like the outcome of the decision?

I'm guessing, not often.

Why? Because despite the common claim of conservatives to be 'constitutionalists', what they really have done is cobbled together a set of interpretations that favor the conservative agenda, and then made THAT Constitution the one they are faithfully adhering to.

In other words,

Wishful thinking.

 

[Madeline]

Uh Oh. Imma gonna tattle on you. Telling tales out of school like that. Why, donca know we aren't supossed to think of any of the Supremes as having a political agenda EVER? We're supossed to pretend O'Connor was chosen for her "accomplishments".

I bet Clarence Thomas is gonna spank you!

LMAO.