Our founding fathers were not conservative

[BlackAsCoal]

The only thing proven is that you don't know the meaning of Conservatism. Conservatism has much more in common with Personal Responsibility and Limited Government as opposed to Statist Government control over every aspect of our lives, Totalitarianism. You need to deprogram and get educated. The only thing Living in the Constitution is the Amendment process, through due process. Manipulating the lives of others to suit anyone's whim, is not what the Constitutional Convention met to determine.

Bet I'm every bit educated as you are .. at the very least.

I understand what conservatism is in theory and in real terms .. and I understand the Constitution .. a living document .. seemingly better than you do.

Jefferson didn't attend the Convention because he was in France, but he could have made allowances to attend.

The amendment process MAKES it a living document.

Perhaps you could use a bit of education on what a living document is ..

•A living document or dynamic document is a document which may be continually edited and updated by either a limited or unrestricted group.

Educated? The constitution is not a living breathing document.

Sertiously unlearned.

Define a living document .. if you can.

I just did.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bet I'm every bit educated as you are .. at the very least.

I understand what conservatism is in theory and in real terms .. and I understand the Constitution .. a living document .. seemingly better than you do.

Jefferson didn't attend the Convention because he was in France, but he could have made allowances to attend.

The amendment process MAKES it a living document.

Perhaps you could use a bit of education on what a living document is ..

•A living document or dynamic document is a document which may be continually edited and updated by either a limited or unrestricted group.

Educated? The constitution is not a living breathing document.

Sertiously unlearned.

Define a living document .. if you can.

I just did.

No what you did was edit your original reply I was responding to your original post, your edited version was caught is the middle.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Amendment process makes the constitution a living document subject to the whims of a majority of SCOTUS?

Wow

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMrf6Dq7UA&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Intense]

The beauty of the wisdom of the Founders can be found in what they did not do. They did not presume themselves to know all or what is best for all future American society .. and that reality can be found in what they did not address even though it was their reality .. like slavery.

They knew it would be a living document.

Thomas Jefferson, who along with James Madison were the most liberal of the bunch, knew the Constitution was an incomplete document and required an additional document, the Bill of Rights, before he agreed to ratify the Constitution. He wouldn't even attend the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."

Madison sought protection against an oppressive majority over the minority .. proving he was no conservative.

The very fact that the Founders did not presume to know all and made room for an evolving society demonstrates that they were not conservative.

The only thing proven is that you don't know the meaning of Conservatism. Conservatism has much more in common with Personal Responsibility and Limited Government as opposed to Statist Government control over every aspect of our lives, Totalitarianism. You need to deprogram and get educated. The only thing Living in the Constitution is the Amendment process, through due process. Manipulating the lives of others to suit anyone's whim, is not what the Constitutional Convention met to determine.

Bet I'm every bit educated as you are .. at the very least.

I understand what conservatism is in theory and in real terms .. and I understand the Constitution .. a living document .. seemingly better than you do.

Jefferson didn't attend the Convention because he was in France, but he could have made allowances to attend.

The amendment process MAKES it a living document.

Perhaps you could use a bit of education on what a living document is ..

•A living document or dynamic document is a document which may be continually edited and updated by either a limited or unrestricted group.

How about you work on those reading comprehension and retention skills as far as we are concerned. You used my answer which is the only condition that makes the Constitution a Living Document to justify what We both already know.

Good understanding Grasshopper. The Amendment Process is the path to reform, not the Judicial Oligarchy. It's good that you see that. Judicial Review has it's legitimate role and function, I don't argue that point either. What I argue is the realization that when Judicial Review abandons reason, when it constructs powers rooted in imagination, when it places itself above checks and balances, when it creates dots to connect that aren't there, the Republic is cheated. What is the recourse when the Court becomes the Tyrant. Take the Enumerated Powers, General Welfare, and The Commerce Clause and look at the history.

Tyranny is Tyranny, whether in the majority or minority is insignificant, what is paramount is the injustice, the degree, and the intent or motive behind it. When an innocent is harmed or done wrong, what difference does it make as to what group he or she belongs to?

You know that Jefferson did not support Federalism, he didn't trust it, I guess knowing Hamilton gave him a sour stomach. It was Madison, his friend, that turned him. The Bill of Rights was a Demand of The Continental Congress before Ratification, the arguments against it in the Federalist Papers, said that because the Federal Powers were so Enumerated, it was totally unnecessary. Hamilton reversed his positions on Federal Limits and Powers after Ratification.

Bet I'm every bit educated as you are .. at the very least.

So??? Is that what makes you who you are??? I truly hope you are more than what others fill your head with. I know you are. You make good points. Your premise is based on things you were taught to be true. Check that premise. Here is a Site I highly recommend you check out. I have found it very helpful, I hope you do.

Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics

 

[Sallow]

Tyranny justifies rebellion, that and refusal to address injustice by the powers that be. Armed Citizenry command respect, no getting around that Sallow. Stop thinking like a City Boy Man, an own up.

Wolverines!

In serveral clauses the Constitution speaks forcefully against insurrection and rebellion. It simply does not advocate for that sort of behavior.

In any case..rebels haven't and wouldn't be defending the Constitution..now have/would they?

Hillbilly

In any case..rebels haven't and wouldn't be defending the Constitution

Nor is the current administration protecting the constitution or the current elected officials.

And that's not the point.

The Constitution doesn't sanction insurrection, rebellion, or revolt as a means to change the government.

It does prescribe a vote.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that even remotely says, "Here's your guns boys, now y'all make sure this doesn't become a tyranny, yah hear?"

Nothing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wolverines!

In serveral clauses the Constitution speaks forcefully against insurrection and rebellion. It simply does not advocate for that sort of behavior.

In any case..rebels haven't and wouldn't be defending the Constitution..now have/would they?

Hillbilly

In any case..rebels haven't and wouldn't be defending the Constitution

Nor is the current administration protecting the constitution or the current elected officials.

And that's not the point.

The Constitution doesn't sanction insurrection, rebellion, or revolt as a means to change the government.

It does prescribe a vote.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that even remotely says, "Here's your guns boys, now y'all make sure this doesn't become a tyranny, yah hear?"

Nothing.

OH hell yell that is the point the current administration isn''t protecting the constitution nor the current elected officials.
What was the reason we have the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[Intense]

Wolverines!

In serveral clauses the Constitution speaks forcefully against insurrection and rebellion. It simply does not advocate for that sort of behavior.

In any case..rebels haven't and wouldn't be defending the Constitution..now have/would they?

Hillbilly

In any case..rebels haven't and wouldn't be defending the Constitution

Nor is the current administration protecting the constitution or the current elected officials.

And that's not the point.

The Constitution doesn't sanction insurrection, rebellion, or revolt as a means to change the government.

It does prescribe a vote.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that even remotely says, "Here's your guns boys, now y'all make sure this doesn't become a tyranny, yah hear?"

Nothing.

There is nothing in The Constitution that grants Totalitarian Power either, Einstein. Just work on getting the Government out of the crapper, before it self destructs. Rambo. Serve Justice start there or forsake it at your own peril. Hurry too, I'm saving my pennies and coupons up for a Guillotine. Hurry up now... Chop-Chop... next in line... We Don't need no stinking badges!
Serve Justice, stop perverting it. There really is no way around that throughout time, throughout the world, everything ends up accounted for.
You do know that I am pro Constitution, pro rule of law and due process, right??? ....Just checking.

 

[Sallow]

Hillbilly



Nor is the current administration protecting the constitution or the current elected officials.

And that's not the point.

The Constitution doesn't sanction insurrection, rebellion, or revolt as a means to change the government.

It does prescribe a vote.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that even remotely says, "Here's your guns boys, now y'all make sure this doesn't become a tyranny, yah hear?"

Nothing.

OH hell yell that is the point the current administration isn''t protecting the constitution nor the current elected officials.
What was the reason we have the right to keep and bear arms?

In this day and age? Personal protection or sport.

Back then..it was to be part of the US military..

And it really doesn't matter much in any case. They would not be much use against the total might of the United States Armed Forces.

 

[Intense]

And that's not the point.

The Constitution doesn't sanction insurrection, rebellion, or revolt as a means to change the government.

It does prescribe a vote.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that even remotely says, "Here's your guns boys, now y'all make sure this doesn't become a tyranny, yah hear?"

Nothing.

OH hell yell that is the point the current administration isn''t protecting the constitution nor the current elected officials.
What was the reason we have the right to keep and bear arms?

In this day and age? Personal protection or sport.

Back then..it was to be part of the US military..

And it really doesn't matter much in any case. They would not be much use against the total might of the United States Armed Forces.

You totally lack understanding on the matter Sallow. We, unlike you, are not the property of the State, and don't have to raise our hands to ask permission to defend ourselves, when the State fails to do so. Do you still raise your hand for permission to pee? Grow up and learn responsibility. Self Defense is an Unalienable Right Sallow. Meditate on that.

 

[Sallow]

Hillbilly



Nor is the current administration protecting the constitution or the current elected officials.

And that's not the point.

The Constitution doesn't sanction insurrection, rebellion, or revolt as a means to change the government.

It does prescribe a vote.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that even remotely says, "Here's your guns boys, now y'all make sure this doesn't become a tyranny, yah hear?"

Nothing.

There is nothing in The Constitution that grants Totalitarian Power either, Einstein. Just work on getting the Government out of the crapper, before it self destructs. Rambo. Serve Justice start there or forsake it at your own peril. Hurry too, I'm saving my pennies and coupons up for a Guillotine. Hurry up now... Chop-Chop... next in line... We Don't need no stinking badges!
Serve Justice, stop perverting it. There really is no way around that throughout time, throughout the world, everything ends up accounted for.
You do know that I am pro Constitution, pro rule of law and due process, right??? ....Just checking.

Um..aside from making no sense.

What's the point of this?

I made this post that there was nothing in the Constitution that supports the notion that it prescribes alternatives other then voting to make a change of government. I've back that up with sections of the document. What I am getting in return is completely ridiculous and absurd proclaimations about "our current administration" or "you haven't made your argument" and nothing that shows where my post was incorrect.

Read the document every once in a while...you might be surprised.

 

[Sallow]

OH hell yell that is the point the current administration isn''t protecting the constitution nor the current elected officials.
What was the reason we have the right to keep and bear arms?

In this day and age? Personal protection or sport.

Back then..it was to be part of the US military..

And it really doesn't matter much in any case. They would not be much use against the total might of the United States Armed Forces.

You totally lack understanding on the matter Sallow. We, unlike you, are not the property of the State, and don't have to raise our hands to ask permission to defend ourselves, when the State fails to do so. Do you still raise your hand for permission to pee? Grow up and learn responsibility. Self Defense is an Unalienable Right Sallow. Meditate on that.

You're all over the place..and still wrong. Personal self defense isn't in the Constitution either..but if you like..try and find it..and give me a "schoolin'".

Collective self-defense..however..is in the Constitution.

 

[The T]

And that's not the point.

The Constitution doesn't sanction insurrection, rebellion, or revolt as a means to change the government.

It does prescribe a vote.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that even remotely says, "Here's your guns boys, now y'all make sure this doesn't become a tyranny, yah hear?"

Nothing.

There is nothing in The Constitution that grants Totalitarian Power either, Einstein. Just work on getting the Government out of the crapper, before it self destructs. Rambo. Serve Justice start there or forsake it at your own peril. Hurry too, I'm saving my pennies and coupons up for a Guillotine. Hurry up now... Chop-Chop... next in line... We Don't need no stinking badges!
Serve Justice, stop perverting it. There really is no way around that throughout time, throughout the world, everything ends up accounted for.
You do know that I am pro Constitution, pro rule of law and due process, right??? ....Just checking.

Um..aside from making no sense.

What's the point of this?

I made this post that there was nothing in the Constitution that supports the notion that it prescribes alternatives other then voting to make a change of government. I've back that up with sections of the document. What I am getting in return is completely ridiculous and absurd proclaimations about "our current administration" or "you haven't made your argument" and nothing that shows where my post was incorrect.

Read the document every once in a while...you might be surprised.

Nothing? Is the Second Amendment...nothing?

As a matter of course...? Of course his post doesn't make sense to someone that thinks Government can do whatever it likes and the electeds forget to represent everyone but their own interests...that is until election day and expect to hold power?

You are far too trusting when it comes to whom you elect, aren't you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hillbilly



Nor is the current administration protecting the constitution or the current elected officials.

And that's not the point.

The Constitution doesn't sanction insurrection, rebellion, or revolt as a means to change the government.

It does prescribe a vote.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that even remotely says, "Here's your guns boys, now y'all make sure this doesn't become a tyranny, yah hear?"

Nothing.

OH hell yell that is the point the current administration isn''t protecting the constitution nor the current elected officials.
What was the reason we have the right to keep and bear arms?

Yup, we want to listen to you, Homer? You think you have a constitutional right to own an antiaircraft missile system because the government can? That is the thinking of a wack out of touch with constitutional reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OH hell yell that is the point the current administration isn''t protecting the constitution nor the current elected officials.
What was the reason we have the right to keep and bear arms?

In this day and age? Personal protection or sport.

Back then..it was to be part of the US military..

And it really doesn't matter much in any case. They would not be much use against the total might of the United States Armed Forces.

You totally lack understanding on the matter Sallow. We, unlike you, are not the property of the State, and don't have to raise our hands to ask permission to defend ourselves, when the State fails to do so. Do you still raise your hand for permission to pee? Grow up and learn responsibility. Self Defense is an Unalienable Right Sallow. Meditate on that.

The constitution protects the social group as well as the individual, Intense. The individual does not supersede the group's welfare and survival. Yeah, certain things you do need to ask permission for. The is not the government of Lone Ranger. Aldous Huxley was simply meat for those who have no trouble making sure that extremes to not threaten the welfare of the center.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And that's not the point.

The Constitution doesn't sanction insurrection, rebellion, or revolt as a means to change the government.

It does prescribe a vote.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that even remotely says, "Here's your guns boys, now y'all make sure this doesn't become a tyranny, yah hear?"

Nothing.

OH hell yell that is the point the current administration isn''t protecting the constitution nor the current elected officials.
What was the reason we have the right to keep and bear arms?

In this day and age? Personal protection or sport.

Back then..it was to be part of the US military..

And it really doesn't matter much in any case. They would not be much use against the total might of the United States Armed Forces.

In this day an age? So you do not think the government can strip you of your rights to life liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? Tyrants have always existed the founders knew they would never go away. The total might of the U.S. military? How did we do in Vietnam? How are we doing in Afghanistan? Iran? both LEO and the military are still out numbered if only 3% of Americas gun owners said enough is enough.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Intense seems to think he is a constitutional Power Ranger with his boy wonder, bigrebcato, as his trusty boykick.

This is fun to read, but their philosophy has no relation to reality.

 

[Intense]

And that's not the point.

The Constitution doesn't sanction insurrection, rebellion, or revolt as a means to change the government.

It does prescribe a vote.

There isn't anything in the Constitution that even remotely says, "Here's your guns boys, now y'all make sure this doesn't become a tyranny, yah hear?"

Nothing.

There is nothing in The Constitution that grants Totalitarian Power either, Einstein. Just work on getting the Government out of the crapper, before it self destructs. Rambo. Serve Justice start there or forsake it at your own peril. Hurry too, I'm saving my pennies and coupons up for a Guillotine. Hurry up now... Chop-Chop... next in line... We Don't need no stinking badges!
Serve Justice, stop perverting it. There really is no way around that throughout time, throughout the world, everything ends up accounted for.
You do know that I am pro Constitution, pro rule of law and due process, right??? ....Just checking.

Um..aside from making no sense.

What's the point of this?

I made this post that there was nothing in the Constitution that supports the notion that it prescribes alternatives other then voting to make a change of government. I've back that up with sections of the document. What I am getting in return is completely ridiculous and absurd proclaimations about "our current administration" or "you haven't made your argument" and nothing that shows where my post was incorrect.

Read the document every once in a while...you might be surprised.

I've not even referenced the current administration. You are projecting. The only thing you have proven is that the Document is living when you want it to be, and literal when you want it to be, which is true only in your imagination.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Intense seems to think he is a constitutional Power Ranger with his boy wonder, bigrebcato, as his trusty boykick.

This is fun to read, but their philosophy has no relation to reality.

Are you here to have a discussion or are you here to trade insults?

 

[Sallow]

There is nothing in The Constitution that grants Totalitarian Power either, Einstein. Just work on getting the Government out of the crapper, before it self destructs. Rambo. Serve Justice start there or forsake it at your own peril. Hurry too, I'm saving my pennies and coupons up for a Guillotine. Hurry up now... Chop-Chop... next in line... We Don't need no stinking badges!
Serve Justice, stop perverting it. There really is no way around that throughout time, throughout the world, everything ends up accounted for.
You do know that I am pro Constitution, pro rule of law and due process, right??? ....Just checking.

Um..aside from making no sense.

What's the point of this?

I made this post that there was nothing in the Constitution that supports the notion that it prescribes alternatives other then voting to make a change of government. I've back that up with sections of the document. What I am getting in return is completely ridiculous and absurd proclaimations about "our current administration" or "you haven't made your argument" and nothing that shows where my post was incorrect.

Read the document every once in a while...you might be surprised.

Nothing? Is the Second Amendment...nothing?

As a matter of course...? Of course his post doesn't make sense to someone that thinks Government can do whatever it likes and the electeds forget to represent everyone but their own interests...that is until election day and expect to hold power?

You are far too trusting when it comes to whom you elect, aren't you?

It's astonishing that people who get so worked up about the Constitution, really don't have much of a clue about what it really says.