Speaker Ryan: "...honest differences honestly stated."

[JakeStarkey]

OKTexas, email your brief to SCOTUS.

Tell us what is their reply when it comes.

 

[TNHarley]

OKTexas, email your brief to SCOTUS.

Tell us what is their reply when it comes.

I don't agree with what he brought up, but they didn't rewrite anything. This kind of goes along with what we were talking about yesterday lol

 

[OKTexas]

We understand the Constitution, we just don't like the courts rewriting it, it is NOT the roll of the courts to redefine the Constitution, that's what Article 5 is for.

They didn't re-define anything. They did their job. Interpretation. That shit shouldn't have even WENT to them. When the federal govt got involved with marriage, that would include gays. Do you support institutional discrimination?

I'm sorry you lack the awareness of what's been occurring in the courts for more than a century and a half. Try reading "Men In Black" and educate yourself a bit. I'm sure you can find someone to help with the big words.

Please name a law that got "rewrote" by the supreme court if you are not talking about gays

Interstate commerce clause, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate trade between the States, Indian Tribes and foreign nations. The courts have expanded that definition to include anything that may or may not have a tangential effect on such commerce giving the feds powers they were never intended to have. The feds have now assumed powers over things that don't even enter into commerce. Like what a farmer grows for his own use, the crops never leave private property.

They didn't rewrite that. They upheld it.
I do think that is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the SC "rewrote" anything.

Have you ever had a home garden? Under the current definition the feds have the power to tell you that's not allowed because your not buying your fruits and vegetables on the open market. Is that really the country you want to live in?

 

[TNHarley]

They didn't re-define anything. They did their job. Interpretation. That shit shouldn't have even WENT to them. When the federal govt got involved with marriage, that would include gays. Do you support institutional discrimination?

I'm sorry you lack the awareness of what's been occurring in the courts for more than a century and a half. Try reading "Men In Black" and educate yourself a bit. I'm sure you can find someone to help with the big words.

Please name a law that got "rewrote" by the supreme court if you are not talking about gays

Interstate commerce clause, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate trade between the States, Indian Tribes and foreign nations. The courts have expanded that definition to include anything that may or may not have a tangential effect on such commerce giving the feds powers they were never intended to have. The feds have now assumed powers over things that don't even enter into commerce. Like what a farmer grows for his own use, the crops never leave private property.

They didn't rewrite that. They upheld it.
I do think that is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the SC "rewrote" anything.

Have you ever had a home garden? Under the current definition the feds have the power to tell you that's not allowed because your not buying your fruits and vegetables on the open market. Is that really the country you want to live in?

LOL dude, the only thing we are disagreeing on is your terminology. SCOTUS doesn't re-write. Doesnt mean I support this bullshit. Come on man!

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas, email your brief to SCOTUS.

Tell us what is their reply when it comes.

I've written the court before, they don't bother to reply, I guess they don't want to be on record answering questions form the people they work for.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm sorry you lack the awareness of what's been occurring in the courts for more than a century and a half. Try reading "Men In Black" and educate yourself a bit. I'm sure you can find someone to help with the big words.

Please name a law that got "rewrote" by the supreme court if you are not talking about gays

Interstate commerce clause, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate trade between the States, Indian Tribes and foreign nations. The courts have expanded that definition to include anything that may or may not have a tangential effect on such commerce giving the feds powers they were never intended to have. The feds have now assumed powers over things that don't even enter into commerce. Like what a farmer grows for his own use, the crops never leave private property.

They didn't rewrite that. They upheld it.
I do think that is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the SC "rewrote" anything.

Have you ever had a home garden? Under the current definition the feds have the power to tell you that's not allowed because your not buying your fruits and vegetables on the open market. Is that really the country you want to live in?

LOL dude, the only thing we are disagreeing on is your terminology. SCOTUS doesn't re-write. Doesnt mean I support this bullshit. Come on man!

When you alter an accepted definition, you are in effect rewriting the Constitution because it doesn't mean what is says. No reason to change the words, you just change the definition.

Another great example, the line item veto. They denied that to the President saying he would be essentially be changing a law to a different form than what congress passed. Yet they reserved to themselves that very veto power by striking particular sections of a law while allowing the remainder to stay in effect, a form that congress didn't pass and a president didn't sign, essentially assuming legislative powers not granted to them by the Constitution.

 

[TNHarley]

Please name a law that got "rewrote" by the supreme court if you are not talking about gays

Interstate commerce clause, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate trade between the States, Indian Tribes and foreign nations. The courts have expanded that definition to include anything that may or may not have a tangential effect on such commerce giving the feds powers they were never intended to have. The feds have now assumed powers over things that don't even enter into commerce. Like what a farmer grows for his own use, the crops never leave private property.

They didn't rewrite that. They upheld it.
I do think that is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the SC "rewrote" anything.

Have you ever had a home garden? Under the current definition the feds have the power to tell you that's not allowed because your not buying your fruits and vegetables on the open market. Is that really the country you want to live in?

LOL dude, the only thing we are disagreeing on is your terminology. SCOTUS doesn't re-write. Doesnt mean I support this bullshit. Come on man!

When you alter an accepted definition, you are in effect rewriting the Constitution because it doesn't mean what is says. No reason to change the words, you just change the definition.

Another great example, the line item veto. They denied that to the President saying he would be essentially be changing a law to a different form than what congress passed. Yet they reserved to themselves that very veto power by striking particular sections of a law while allowing the remainder to stay in effect, a form that congress didn't pass and a president didn't sign, essentially assuming legislative powers not granted to them by the Constitution.

They "interpreted".. the Rehnquist court and the marshall court era have interpreted them differently. Words meanings also change over time. Like "commerce"

Line item veto? They ruled it unconstitutional.. We have this thing called Article 1, Section 7, clauses 2 & 3 of the COTUS.

 

[OKTexas]

Interstate commerce clause, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate trade between the States, Indian Tribes and foreign nations. The courts have expanded that definition to include anything that may or may not have a tangential effect on such commerce giving the feds powers they were never intended to have. The feds have now assumed powers over things that don't even enter into commerce. Like what a farmer grows for his own use, the crops never leave private property.

They didn't rewrite that. They upheld it.
I do think that is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the SC "rewrote" anything.

Have you ever had a home garden? Under the current definition the feds have the power to tell you that's not allowed because your not buying your fruits and vegetables on the open market. Is that really the country you want to live in?

LOL dude, the only thing we are disagreeing on is your terminology. SCOTUS doesn't re-write. Doesnt mean I support this bullshit. Come on man!

When you alter an accepted definition, you are in effect rewriting the Constitution because it doesn't mean what is says. No reason to change the words, you just change the definition.

Another great example, the line item veto. They denied that to the President saying he would be essentially be changing a law to a different form than what congress passed. Yet they reserved to themselves that very veto power by striking particular sections of a law while allowing the remainder to stay in effect, a form that congress didn't pass and a president didn't sign, essentially assuming legislative powers not granted to them by the Constitution.

They "interpreted".. the Rehnquist court and the marshall court era have interpreted them differently. Words meanings also change over time. Like "commerce"

Line item veto? They ruled it unconstitutional.. We have this thing called Article 1, Section 7, clauses 2 & 3 of the COTUS.

I got to go vote and do a bit of shopping, I will get back to this.

 

[Vigilante]

• Tom DeLay: Paul Ryan Is ‘Another Boehner’
  10/29/2015, 4:18:53 PM · by Enlightened1 · 16 replies
  Breitbart ^
  On Thursday’s “Cavuto: Coast to Coast” on the Fox Business Network, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) took aim at Speaker-Elect Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) 58% for not signaling he will do more to overturn what he deemed to be a backroom budget deal. DeLay pointed out how two-thirds of the House GOP voted against it and that from here on out, Ryan needs to lay down a marker showing he’s willing to lead Republicans in the right direction. “He talks a good game but he’s already started in his action of maybe being another Boehner,” DeLay said. “I...

 

[Little-Acorn]

The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.

That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.

They don't understand the Constitution.

Conservatives know the Constitution very well, and support the conservative government it mandates.

Leftist fanatics understand it too... and hate it because it prevents them from controlling the people around them. So they tell lies about it, and about the people who support it, in hopes of fooling people into thinking the leftists have a better way when they don't.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.

That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.

They don't understand the Constitution.

The Constitution says we'll have a Congress, a President and VP, a Supreme Courts, and lower courts. It defines their duties, and names the things Congress is authorized to make laws about. Plus a few other things. All as valid today as they were in 1789, except for a few parts that normal (i.e. conservative) Americans have long thrown out via amendment.

Leftist fanatics who hate that arrangement, try to pretend the Constitution requires us to ride horses and deny women the vote, when of course it says no such thing. But without that false "argument" the leftist fanatics would have no leg to stand on in their opposition to the Constitution.

Their real problem with it is, of course, that it forbids their leftist big-govt agenda, by limiting government to certain things; and requires an extensive procedure to add any more powers. But they can't admit that publicly, because they know normal Americans don't want it to have too much more power and will vote them down.

Conservatives know the Constitution very well, and support the conservative government it mandates.

Leftist fanatics understand it too... and hate it because it prevents them from controlling the people around them. So they tell lies about it, and about the people who support it, in hopes of fooling normal Americans into thinking the leftists have a better way when they don't.

That's why Ryan's call for "honest differences honestly stated" falls on deaf ears, among those who hate the Constitution. Honesty defeats them, so they want no part of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right and libertarian nut cases simply don't have the political strength to role back things to the 1950s.

 

[Rustic]

The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.

That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.

They don't understand the Constitution.

You silly fool, the progressives want to shred the constitution.
They talk about changing it all the time.

 

[OKTexas]

Interstate commerce clause, the Constitution only gives the feds the power to regulate trade between the States, Indian Tribes and foreign nations. The courts have expanded that definition to include anything that may or may not have a tangential effect on such commerce giving the feds powers they were never intended to have. The feds have now assumed powers over things that don't even enter into commerce. Like what a farmer grows for his own use, the crops never leave private property.

They didn't rewrite that. They upheld it.
I do think that is unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the SC "rewrote" anything.

Have you ever had a home garden? Under the current definition the feds have the power to tell you that's not allowed because your not buying your fruits and vegetables on the open market. Is that really the country you want to live in?

LOL dude, the only thing we are disagreeing on is your terminology. SCOTUS doesn't re-write. Doesnt mean I support this bullshit. Come on man!

When you alter an accepted definition, you are in effect rewriting the Constitution because it doesn't mean what is says. No reason to change the words, you just change the definition.

Another great example, the line item veto. They denied that to the President saying he would be essentially be changing a law to a different form than what congress passed. Yet they reserved to themselves that very veto power by striking particular sections of a law while allowing the remainder to stay in effect, a form that congress didn't pass and a president didn't sign, essentially assuming legislative powers not granted to them by the Constitution.

They "interpreted".. the Rehnquist court and the marshall court era have interpreted them differently. Words meanings also change over time. Like "commerce"

Line item veto? They ruled it unconstitutional.. We have this thing called Article 1, Section 7, clauses 2 & 3 of the COTUS.

So you're saying it's an exercise in futility to bother to write a law down, if a judge or group of judges can completely alter its operation and meaning or just erase parts of it. I mean if the folks that wrote them, debated them and voted on them and the president that signed them could't have possibly as smart as some lawyer/s in robe/s decades later. And you're OK with that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

TN said nothing of the sort, OK; that was your silly interpretation of what he said.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.

That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.

They don't understand the Constitution.

Exactly.

They don't understand the Constitution and have contempt for its case law.

And conservatives have no desire for 'smaller government' when they seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by denying women their right to privacy, gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law, and immigrants their right to due process.

'Less regulation' is conservaspeak for reckless, irresponsible governance and public policy, where corporations pollute with impunity, jeopardize the safety of Americans in their places of employment, and endanger the health and lives of American consumers.

Last, conservatives need to exhibit greater fealty to Constitutional jurisprudence, as the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution – “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

If conservatives are serious about governing responsibly, they'll do so in good faith to the benefit of all Americans, not blindly adhering to failed conservative dogma.

 

[OKTexas]

TN said nothing of the sort, OK; that was your silly interpretation of what he said.

If you want to address what I actually said, feel free. But read up on the whole exchange so you know what your talking about.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TN said nothing of the sort, OK; that was your silly interpretation of what he said.

If you want to address what I actually said, feel free. But read up on the whole exchange so you know what your talking about.

I know what I am talking about; you don't. You made up out of nothing what TN said. Either you are a dolt or malignant.

 

[OKTexas]

The problem with "Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written." is that they want to turn Constitutional interpretation to pre 1803.

That is why the far hard right "conservatives" always will fail.

They don't understand the Constitution.

Exactly.

They don't understand the Constitution and have contempt for its case law.

And conservatives have no desire for 'smaller government' when they seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by denying women their right to privacy, gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law, and immigrants their right to due process.

'Less regulation' is conservaspeak for reckless, irresponsible governance and public policy, where corporations pollute with impunity, jeopardize the safety of Americans in their places of employment, and endanger the health and lives of American consumers.

Last, conservatives need to exhibit greater fealty to Constitutional jurisprudence, as the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution – “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

If conservatives are serious about governing responsibly, they'll do so in good faith to the benefit of all Americans, not blindly adhering to failed conservative dogma.

You're absolutely right, I have total contempt for any court ruling that grants the government any power not specifically granted by the language of the Constitution. That's what Article 5 is for, not the courts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Although unlikely, perhaps Ryan can find the maturity and pragmatism to govern in a responsible manner, keeping in check the irresponsible extremism of the partisan right, affording Americans the good governance they deserve.