PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #21
The only question for me is whether this is the fate that America deserves, having veered so far from our original mission statement, or if this nation gets a second chance.
The Constitution: Where They Stand
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
The only question for me is whether this is the fate that America deserves, having veered so far from our original mission statement, or if this nation gets a second chance.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,320
- 12,903
- 2,400
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #24
The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.
None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.
- Banned
- #25
The Freedom Index rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and avoiding foreign entanglements. The percentages below are cumulative scores based on key votes from 2001 to 2020. Click Voting Record under a senator's or representative's name to get a detailed breakdown of his or her voting record.
Freedom Index-
Find your districts Empty Suit voting record based on the mentioned criteria-
Democrat
Republican
Freedom Index-
Find your districts Empty Suit voting record based on the mentioned criteria-
Democrat
Republican
- Banned
- #26
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
So easy even I knew the answer-
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #27
- Banned
- #28
Who says? Read my signature line and take it at face value- I DESPISE EQUALLY- any authoritarian no matter his stripe or uniform-
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #29
- Banned
- #30
I, just like you, don't count- "we the stinky tourists" are supposed to be the "leader"- servants do not lead- they RE PRESENT anothers wants and desires. Period.
POTUS is the chief excecutive of the fed gov't and Commander in Chief of the armed forces (which the founders feared as a standing army)
Congress critters are to write fed restrictions to your liberty so they retain relevance-
The "judiciary" is to apply law- not make it up as they go- or change the definitions of words-
justinacolmena
Gold Member
- Banned
- #32
The courts do have a duty to warn of speech deemed unacceptable, but if they do warn of offensive speech, then they fall into the trap of prior restraint.
The Doctrine of Prior Restraint
: Analysis and Interpretation of the of the U.S. Constitution
law.justia.com
badbob85037
Diamond Member
- Jun 30, 2018
- 3,689
- 2,503
- 1,938
1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary.
The Constitution is the oldest written charter of government in use in the world today.
Today, we have a major political party that sees the Constitution as a bar to their power.
2. A 2001 INTERVIEW OF Sen. Barack Obama saying some pretty remarkable things about what he sees as the inadequacy of our Constitution has recently come to light. They go to the core of what this election is about and, even more fundamentally, what America is and may be.
It's perhaps good to remember first what makes America different from other countries. Unlike in other places that are defined by geography and ancestry, to be an American comes from subscribing to a particular set of ideas that are very, very different from those held in much of the rest of the world.
Obama in his interview disparages the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
....Obama, like many leftists before him, is unhappy with the constraints of our Constitution. ....that sort of thinking—that government should do it—is precisely what saps volunteerism and helps explain why both the Obamas' and the Bidens' charitable contributions are so pitiful.
It's also important to remember that if the government is doing something for one person—"redistributive change" as Obama wants, it must do something to someone else—which is exactly what our Constitution specifically precludes."
3. Earlier, the Republicans wanted a reading of the Constitution in Congress....
"Other lawmakers decried the exercise altogether, saying the Constitution is a living document that shouldn't be followed to the letter.
"They are reading it like a sacred text," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., the former chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, told The Washington Post.
Nadler derided what he called the "ritualistic reading" as "total nonsense" and "propaganda" intended to give Republicans claim to the document. He argued that the Founders were not "demigods" and that the document's needs for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed it was "highly imperfect."
Purpose Behind Congressional Reading of Constitution Questioned After Amendments Are Omitted
Newly sworn members of the House reading aloud the country's founding document on Thursday didn't recite every verse and article of the Constitution because Republicans decided that the obsolete parts should not be read, a decision that raised criticism about adherence to the Founding Fathers'...www.foxnews.com
4. Imagine putting on our Supreme Court, a Justice who disavows the first amendment. Justice Kagan opposes free speech.
"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:
"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."
In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."
Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?
Via The Volokh Conspiracy comes this blast from Elena Kagan’s past. The Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant reports: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Littl…thedaleygator.wordpress.com
5. Another Democrat/Liberal Justice who has no respect for the US Constitution.
SC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ~ to Egypt: "I would not look to the US constitution"
Those poor 0bamas.You leave them alone. Dot't you know they are living with G
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #34
1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. But the Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; no where was this more evident than in the judiciary.
The Constitution is the oldest written charter of government in use in the world today.
Today, we have a major political party that sees the Constitution as a bar to their power.
2. A 2001 INTERVIEW OF Sen. Barack Obama saying some pretty remarkable things about what he sees as the inadequacy of our Constitution has recently come to light. They go to the core of what this election is about and, even more fundamentally, what America is and may be.
It's perhaps good to remember first what makes America different from other countries. Unlike in other places that are defined by geography and ancestry, to be an American comes from subscribing to a particular set of ideas that are very, very different from those held in much of the rest of the world.
Obama in his interview disparages the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
....Obama, like many leftists before him, is unhappy with the constraints of our Constitution. ....that sort of thinking—that government should do it—is precisely what saps volunteerism and helps explain why both the Obamas' and the Bidens' charitable contributions are so pitiful.
It's also important to remember that if the government is doing something for one person—"redistributive change" as Obama wants, it must do something to someone else—which is exactly what our Constitution specifically precludes."
3. Earlier, the Republicans wanted a reading of the Constitution in Congress....
"Other lawmakers decried the exercise altogether, saying the Constitution is a living document that shouldn't be followed to the letter.
"They are reading it like a sacred text," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., the former chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, told The Washington Post.
Nadler derided what he called the "ritualistic reading" as "total nonsense" and "propaganda" intended to give Republicans claim to the document. He argued that the Founders were not "demigods" and that the document's needs for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed it was "highly imperfect."
Purpose Behind Congressional Reading of Constitution Questioned After Amendments Are Omitted
Newly sworn members of the House reading aloud the country's founding document on Thursday didn't recite every verse and article of the Constitution because Republicans decided that the obsolete parts should not be read, a decision that raised criticism about adherence to the Founding Fathers'...
4. Imagine putting on our Supreme Court, a Justice who disavows the first amendment. Justice Kagan opposes free speech.
"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:
"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."
In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."
Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Brandenburg v. Ohio - WikipediaElena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?
Via The Volokh Conspiracy comes this blast from Elena Kagan’s past. The Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant reports: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Littl…
5. Another Democrat/Liberal Justice who has no respect for the US Constitution.
SC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ~ to Egypt: "I would not look to the US constitution"
Those poor 0bamas.You leave them alone. Dot't you know they are living with G
How long before they put Obama's pic on the Rial?????
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
Making Parenting Great Again…One Tariff-Hiked Stroller at a Time- Latest: Admiral Rockwell Tory
-
-
