The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.

[Dragon]

So your answer to the question in my previous post would be yes?

It was an absurd hypothetical, as no court would ever rule that those accused of murder are not entitled to a trial, but if one did, that would not be an "unconstitutional" ruling. It would be a bad ruling, a stupid ruling, and a certain-to-be-overturned ruling, but an unconstitutional court ruling is an oxymoron. Only laws can be unconstitutional, not court rulings.

 

[Bern80]

So your answer to the question in my previous post would be yes?

It was an absurd hypothetical, as no court would ever rule that those accused of murder are not entitled to a trial, but if one did, that would not be an "unconstitutional" ruling. It would be a bad ruling, a stupid ruling, and a certain-to-be-overturned ruling, but an unconstitutional court ruling is an oxymoron. Only laws can be unconstitutional, not court rulings.

The contention both you and Jillian are sticking by is that whatever ruling a court makes, no matter what rulling it may be, is constitutional....always. It is an argument that reeks of personal convenience for both people like yourself and those in power. Again apparently it takes an example so obviously contradictory to what the constitution says for the two of you to see what an absolutely moronic position that is. Clearly a position you haven't considered the meaning of. It would mean that the constitution itself is basically meaningless because it is not the final say on what is constituonal. The reality is whatever a judge says is constittuional is constitutional. How that doesn't said completely ridiculous to either of you is beyond me. If that is true it would mean the way the constitution is modified is not through the ammendment process as outlined in the document but rather through court rulings.

 

[Dragon]

The contention both you and Jillian are sticking by is that whatever ruling a court makes, no matter what rulling it may be, is constitutional....always.

Correct.

Again apparently it takes an example so obviously contradictory to what the constitution says for the two of you to see what an absolutely moronic position that is.

I think you need to read more carefully. I stated that the "absolutely moronic" ruling you presented as a hypothetical would NOT be unconstitutional. Of course, I can observe myself that the Sixth Amendment guarantees everyone accused of a crime "a speedy and public trial," and so voice my private opinion that the court has its head up its ass. But that would not make the ruling unconstitutional, it would just make it, in my opinion, stupid. (And I would expect the appeals court to concur.)

A court ruling cannot be unconstitutional because there is no independent authority capable of declaring it so. The term "unconstitutional" applies only to laws, which come from Congress, not from the courts.

It's clear you don't understand the concept, and wish to present the Constitution itself as the ultimate authority on constitutionality. But the problem here is that the Constitution cannot interpret itself. It cannot come out and say, "Hey, that court ruling messed up, and I say it needs to be overturned." If it could, if it was a "living document" in a sense quite different from the way those words are usually meant, then we would not need courts for judicial review at all.

 

[Bern80]

The contention both you and Jillian are sticking by is that whatever ruling a court makes, no matter what rulling it may be, is constitutional....always.

Correct.

Again apparently it takes an example so obviously contradictory to what the constitution says for the two of you to see what an absolutely moronic position that is.

I think you need to read more carefully. I stated that the "absolutely moronic" ruling you presented as a hypothetical would NOT be unconstitutional. Of course, I can observe myself that the Sixth Amendment guarantees everyone accused of a crime "a speedy and public trial," and so voice my private opinion that the court has its head up its ass. But that would not make the ruling unconstitutional, it would just make it, in my opinion, stupid. (And I would expect the appeals court to concur.)

A court ruling cannot be unconstitutional because there is no independent authority capable of declaring it so. The term "unconstitutional" applies only to laws, which come from Congress, not from the courts.

It's clear you don't understand the concept, and wish to present the Constitution itself as the ultimate authority on constitutionality. But the problem here is that the Constitution cannot interpret itself. It cannot come out and say, "Hey, that court ruling messed up, and I say it needs to be overturned." If it could, if it was a "living document" in a sense quite different from the way those words are usually meant, then we would not need courts for judicial review at all.

Declaring something so doesn't make it so. I would acquiesce only that perhaps both of our views could be right. Regardless of what a judge may rule, it doesn't change the observable fact that denying a person due process is the opposite of what the constitution says people have a right to.

 

[daws101]

The contention both you and Jillian are sticking by is that whatever ruling a court makes, no matter what rulling it may be, is constitutional....always.

Correct.

Again apparently it takes an example so obviously contradictory to what the constitution says for the two of you to see what an absolutely moronic position that is.

I think you need to read more carefully. I stated that the "absolutely moronic" ruling you presented as a hypothetical would NOT be unconstitutional. Of course, I can observe myself that the Sixth Amendment guarantees everyone accused of a crime "a speedy and public trial," and so voice my private opinion that the court has its head up its ass. But that would not make the ruling unconstitutional, it would just make it, in my opinion, stupid. (And I would expect the appeals court to concur.)

A court ruling cannot be unconstitutional because there is no independent authority capable of declaring it so. The term "unconstitutional" applies only to laws, which come from Congress, not from the courts.

It's clear you don't understand the concept, and wish to present the Constitution itself as the ultimate authority on constitutionality. But the problem here is that the Constitution cannot interpret itself. It cannot come out and say, "Hey, that court ruling messed up, and I say it needs to be overturned." If it could, if it was a "living document" in a sense quite different from the way those words are usually meant, then we would not need courts for judicial review at all.

Declaring something so doesn't make it so. I would acquiesce only that perhaps both of our views could be right. Regardless of what a judge may rule, it doesn't change the observable fact that denying a person due process is the opposite of what the constitution says people have a right to.

please list some real life examples of lack of due process.

 

[Brutus]

So why is Liberalism so tolerated today?

Because the US Constitution is specifically designed to encourage and protect free-thinking, freedom of speech and the ideas that are spawned by free thinking and freedom of speech.

Liberalism is just an idea. America is still a nation that protects ideas.

Actually Nazi ideas, for example, and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government

 

[Brutus]

A court ruling cannot be unconstitutional because there is no independent authority capable of declaring it so.

of course that is incorrect. All who hold office swear to preserve and protect the Constitution. If the Supremes do something too liberal and unconstitutional the Congress can pass a new law and/or pack the court with more conservative judges.

Justice Marshall, a flaming liberal, said," you can do anything you want around here as long as you have 5 votes." That is the sort of liberal danger from which the Congress hopefully will defend us.

 

[daws101]

So why is Liberalism so tolerated today?

Because the US Constitution is specifically designed to encourage and protect free-thinking, freedom of speech and the ideas that are spawned by free thinking and freedom of speech.

Liberalism is just an idea. America is still a nation that protects ideas.

Actually Nazi ideas, for example, and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government

wondered when some one would bring up the Nazis ..talk about limited government!

 

[Brutus]

Because the US Constitution is specifically designed to encourage and protect free-thinking, freedom of speech and the ideas that are spawned by free thinking and freedom of speech.

Liberalism is just an idea. America is still a nation that protects ideas.

Actually Nazi ideas, for example, and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government

wondered when some one would bring up the Nazis ..talk about limited government!

Nazis like strong central government and so do liberals and Communists. Why did you think the liberals spied for Stalin?

 

[AVG-JOE]

So why is Liberalism so tolerated today?

Because the US Constitution is specifically designed to encourage and protect free-thinking, freedom of speech and the ideas that are spawned by free thinking and freedom of speech.

Liberalism is just an idea. America is still a nation that protects ideas.

Actually Nazi ideas, for example, and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government

Your trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?



And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".

 

[daws101]

Because the US Constitution is specifically designed to encourage and protect free-thinking, freedom of speech and the ideas that are spawned by free thinking and freedom of speech.

Liberalism is just an idea. America is still a nation that protects ideas.

Actually Nazi ideas, for example, and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government

You trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?



And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".

bump!!!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Exactly my question also.
Why do Dems and some Repubs believe in Socialism?
It has never worked.

Its working right now. We have socialism for roads, highways, school, retirement and disability insurance, science, public media, dams, parks, health care for the old and poor, and for every active and many inactive members of the U.S. military ... I could go on. And all of those on the list range from the best in the world (highways) to while maybe not the best, still better than most (schools). Generally quite successful, with room for improvement - which is the story of our nation's history.

Our Constitution is for a Republic form of government, not communism, not socialism or Marxism.

A Republican form of government is a government controlled by the public. The Founders laid out a framework, not an ideology. They couldn't even agree themselves on ideology, as is blatantly evident by their failure to rectify the issue of slavery.

None of these 3 types of governments ever work, they always collapse eventually.

All governments always collapse eventually.

Hell that is why China went Capitalistic because they were going downhill with complete communism.

With complete communism? You seem to be suggesting a "little bit" of communism is A-OK.Tell you what, since you love China so much, go live their.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Actually Nazi ideas, for example, and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government

You trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?



And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".

bump!!!

And grind?

 

[daws101]

You trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?



And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".

bump!!!

And grind?

don't break a hip!

 

[Brutus]

Because the US Constitution is specifically designed to encourage and protect free-thinking, freedom of speech and the ideas that are spawned by free thinking and freedom of speech.

Liberalism is just an idea. America is still a nation that protects ideas.

Actually Nazi ideas, for example, and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government

You trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?



And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".

The Constitution does not criminalize thought, only liberal or Nazi actions that would be inconsistent with Jeffersonian Republican conservative capitalist libertarian limited governemnt.

You have to face facts, the liberals spied for Stalin because they hate freedom or liberty from government.

 

[daws101]

Actually Nazi ideas, for example, and liberal ideas are prevented by the Constitution which was designed to protect limited government

You trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?



And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".

The Constitution does not criminalize thought, only liberal or Nazi actions that would be inconsistent with Jeffersonian Republican conservative capitalist libertarian limited governemnt.

You have to face facts, the liberals spied for Stalin because they hate freedom or liberty from government.

since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have to face facts…

You first.

 

[Brutus]

since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous

as a liberal you are of course perfectly and 100% ignorant. Jefferson surveyed all of all human history and created America based on the idea the big government or liberal government was evil, and that small or conservative government was not.


Welcome to your first lesson in American History. This is a huge day for you, liberal.

Jefferson:
My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

-Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

-Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

-The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

-Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

 

[Bfgrn]

You trying to tell me the FBI is unable to fuck with Nazi based hate groups because they (the FBI) don't know that thinking like a nazi is 'illegal' in this country?



And here I thought we had to put up with hate speech from Nazi groups because ALL speech is protected under The Constitution, including speech determined by Sean Hannity to be "Liberal".

The Constitution does not criminalize thought, only liberal or Nazi actions that would be inconsistent with Jeffersonian Republican conservative capitalist libertarian limited governemnt.

You have to face facts, the liberals spied for Stalin because they hate freedom or liberty from government.

since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous

And there was no such thing as a libertarian in our founder's days. The fact is that the concept of the “state” as presented in some modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy.

 

[Brutus]

The Constitution does not criminalize thought, only liberal or Nazi actions that would be inconsistent with Jeffersonian Republican conservative capitalist libertarian limited governemnt.

You have to face facts, the liberals spied for Stalin because they hate freedom or liberty from government.

since liberals and Conservatives did not exist in the 18th century your claims are erroneous

And there was no such thing as a libertarian in our founder's days. The fact is that the concept of the “state” as presented in some modern libertarian writing owes much more to 19th century German ideas than to the 18th century Anglo-American legacy.

more perfect liberal ignorance:

Cato: Of course, the idea of severe restrictions on the power and reach of government goes back long before the American experience. Libertarian-sounding rhetoric can be found in Confucius’s disciple, Mencius, who wrote that “in a nation, the people are the most important, the state is next, and the ruler is the least important.” And in the Western tradition, Judaism taught that the king ruled beneath God and was subject to His rules. A separate priestly caste meant that the king wasn’t responsible for interpreting his own mandate. The heart of Judaism was the contract between Jehovah and the Jews—meaning that even God, the highest source of government, had obligations to His people, as long as they kept up their end of the bargain. In classical Greece, Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus (featuring Prometheus defying Zeus in the name of a justice higher than the gods), Antigone by Sophocles, and Euripides’s attacks in various plays on slavery and the barbarity of war indicate a people who understood the distinction between what earthly, or even divine, authority commanded and what was right and just. A natural law and natural rights tradition that recognizes discoverable, rational standards for justice above and beyond the decisions of earthly governments runs throughout Western intellectual history and has strong libertarian implications.

Libertarian ideas about human politics go back even to prehistory, to the creation of the state itself. Although theories of the origins of the state are merely implicit in most libertarian writers, the German anthropologist Franz Oppenheimer described its origin in The State as being in blood and conquest, the result of conquerors trying to live off others’ efforts through taxation and the provision of “protection.” Oppenheimer distinguished between the “political” means of acquiring wealth—taking it—and the “economic” means—production and exchange.