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

[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.

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.

This is exactly what he said.

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.

He implied that he was totally comfortable with judges interpreting thing differently than preceding courts have and he is also comfortable with applying different definitions to words in law and the Constitution other than the definitions that applied at the time the law or document was written. Then he gave constitutional references that had nothing to do with courts granting themselves the power to delete sections of laws while leaving the rest in force when they denied that same authority to the president. Wouldn't the same logic they used to deny the president a line item veto, apply to them?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

When do we address the irresponsibility and extremism from the regressivecrats? I know you regressivecrats don't like opposition but Ryan was elected to lead that opposition, not to fold like a cheep suit, like his predecessor.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He was elected to lead his party and to help govern.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In his speech accepting the election as Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan said we should encourage people airing their disagreements. But he put a major caveat into his endorsement: "We have nothing to fear from honest differences honestly stated."

And that's the rub.

Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written.

But Democrats cannot possibly state publicly that they want more government involvement, regulation and restriction far beyond anything authorized by the Constitution, more taxes, more govt control over routine parts of people's lives. Even though that's what virtually every Democrat policy winds up promoting, however intentional.

Democrats know that they would be turfed out of office so fast the seats of their pants would smoke, if they honestly stated what they were going to do. On the few occasions the liberals (in both parties) did reveal their agenda when the public was actually listening (passing Obamacare and other new entitlements, passing unconstitutional gun restrictions, etc.), they HAVE been kicked out of office in large numbers (congressional elections in 1994, 2010, 2014; Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012).

The rest of the time, they have successfully lied and pretended to be somehow conservative or innovative, which got them enough votes to survive. And they have promised to give more and more free stuff without the people having to pay for it ("Make the rich pay instead"), without mentioning the soaring debts and dwindling economy that has resulted from such policies every time.

Today Paul Ryan called for "honest differences honestly stated".

But he was addressing the wrong people. The ones causing the strife in the House (liberals in both parties) have no intention to state anything honestly, since they know that would get them voted out of office.

Rep. Paul Ryan Elected Speaker of the House

He spoke of honesty, clearly, he wasn't speaking to you.

 

[sarahgop]

"Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written."

That aint happenin under king ryan.

 

[Rustic]

THey just payed debt with more debt, them congressmen are just brilliant.

Spineless cowards

 

[BluesLegend]

Its not Democrat vs Republican, its the Washington establishment vs voters. Establishment Republicans are big fat LIARS. They just colluded with Democrats to pass a 2 year budget deal that broke every damn promise they made to voters. It was stunning even for these lying asshole RINO's. Voters gave Republicans control of congress and the RINO leadership handed it right back to the Democrats. WTF

 

[TNHarley]

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?

That is not what I said. YOu mentioned accepted definition. The "accepted" definitions of words change all the time. Like the word "commerce", specifically. Economic descriptions have a high probability of changing with technology and all. If nothing else, it is realistic.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

I agree.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written."

That aint happenin under king ryan.

Progressives and liberals want the Supreme Court to recognize the law as it applies to the 21st Century, not the 18th; Reactionaries are happy to see it applied when the great threat to our citizens were Native Americans and Disease.

 

[TNHarley]

"Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written."

That aint happenin under king ryan.

Progressives and liberals want the Supreme Court to recognize the law as it applies to the 21st Century, not the 18th; Reactionaries are happy to see it applied when the great threat to our citizens were Native Americans and Disease.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written."

That aint happenin under king ryan.

Progressives and liberals want the Supreme Court to recognize the law as it applies to the 21st Century, not the 18th; Reactionaries are happy to see it applied when the great threat to our citizens were Native Americans and Disease.

Once again a rational statement strikes you dumb. Emoticons are not rebuttals, they are only a source for the lazy to post an ad hominem.

 

[TNHarley]

"Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written."

That aint happenin under king ryan.

Progressives and liberals want the Supreme Court to recognize the law as it applies to the 21st Century, not the 18th; Reactionaries are happy to see it applied when the great threat to our citizens were Native Americans and Disease.

Once again a rational statement strikes you dumb. Emoticons are not rebuttals, they are only a source for the lazy to post an ad hominem.

Rational? What do you consider rational?

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written."

That aint happenin under king ryan.

Progressives and liberals want the Supreme Court to recognize the law as it applies to the 21st Century, not the 18th; Reactionaries are happy to see it applied when the great threat to our citizens were Native Americans and Disease.

Once again a rational statement strikes you dumb. Emoticons are not rebuttals, they are only a source for the lazy to post an ad hominem.

Rational? What do you consider rational?

Pragmatism, not ideology.

 

[TNHarley]

"Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written."

That aint happenin under king ryan.

Progressives and liberals want the Supreme Court to recognize the law as it applies to the 21st Century, not the 18th; Reactionaries are happy to see it applied when the great threat to our citizens were Native Americans and Disease.

Once again a rational statement strikes you dumb. Emoticons are not rebuttals, they are only a source for the lazy to post an ad hominem.

Rational? What do you consider rational?

Pragmatism, not ideology.

How does that equate with todays left? Lefties are based mostly off of emotion.

 

[Rustic]

Progressives and liberals want the Supreme Court to recognize the law as it applies to the 21st Century, not the 18th; Reactionaries are happy to see it applied when the great threat to our citizens were Native Americans and Disease.

Once again a rational statement strikes you dumb. Emoticons are not rebuttals, they are only a source for the lazy to post an ad hominem.

Rational? What do you consider rational?

Pragmatism, not ideology.

How does that equate with todays left? Lefties are based mostly off of emotion.

...hence the bat sh!t crazy part.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In his speech accepting the election as Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan said we should encourage people airing their disagreements. But he put a major caveat into his endorsement: "We have nothing to fear from honest differences honestly stated."

And that's the rub.

Conservatives straightforwardly declare that they want smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and more fealty to the Constitution as written.

But Democrats cannot possibly state publicly that they want more government involvement, regulation and restriction far beyond anything authorized by the Constitution, more taxes, more govt control over routine parts of people's lives. Even though that's what virtually every Democrat policy winds up promoting, however intentional.

Democrats know that they would be turfed out of office so fast the seats of their pants would smoke, if they honestly stated what they were going to do. On the few occasions the liberals (in both parties) did reveal their agenda when the public was actually listening (passing Obamacare and other new entitlements, passing unconstitutional gun restrictions, etc.), they HAVE been kicked out of office in large numbers (congressional elections in 1994, 2010, 2014; Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012).

The rest of the time, they have successfully lied and pretended to be somehow conservative or innovative, which got them enough votes to survive. And they have promised to give more and more free stuff without the people having to pay for it ("Make the rich pay instead"), without mentioning the soaring debts and dwindling economy that has resulted from such policies every time.

Today Paul Ryan called for "honest differences honestly stated".

But he was addressing the wrong people. The ones causing the strife in the House (liberals in both parties) have no intention to state anything honestly, since they know that would get them voted out of office.

Rep. Paul Ryan Elected Speaker of the House

He spoke of honesty, clearly, he wasn't speaking to you.

Didn't even read the OP, did we?

Or did you ignore the parts you didn't like but couldn't refute?

 

[OKTexas]

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?

That is not what I said. YOu mentioned accepted definition. The "accepted" definitions of words change all the time. Like the word "commerce", specifically. Economic descriptions have a high probability of changing with technology and all. If nothing else, it is realistic.

Enough word games, do you agree with the courts redefining the meanings in a 240 year old document based on modern definitions? A simple yes or no is all that's required.

 

[TNHarley]

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?

That is not what I said. YOu mentioned accepted definition. The "accepted" definitions of words change all the time. Like the word "commerce", specifically. Economic descriptions have a high probability of changing with technology and all. If nothing else, it is realistic.

Enough word games, do you agree with the courts redefining the meanings in a 240 year old document based on modern definitions? A simple yes or no is all that's required.

I don't think a simple yes or no is sufficient for a question like that. It is far from "black & white". When referring to the economy, yes.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Enough word games,

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what you said, so I'll call it names, lie about it, and hope somebody believes there's something wrong with it anyway.

A simple yes or no is all that's required.

TRANSLATION: Please don't point out my deflection attempts and disingenuousness.

do you agree with the courts redefining the meanings in a 240 year old document based on modern definitions?

Such as the part that says, "The Federal govt can only have the powers listed in this document. All other powers can only be exercised by the States or the people if they want to. And if you want the Fed to have any more powers, 3/4 of the states must agree, and the President has no say at all in the decision." ?

That part?

No, I don't agree with the courts "redefining" it.

Anything else I can help you with?