The special insanity of it all

[P@triot]

Anyone who thinks that term limits--ones that tell you you can't run for office or you can't vote for someone whom you want--obviously are at odds with the Constitution.

“The second feature I dislike, and strongly dislike, is the abandonment in every instance of the principle of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President. Reason and experience tell us that the first magistrate will always be reelected if he may be reelected. He is then an officer for life.” – Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (December 20, 1787)

Oops.... And my dear? Before you go off half-cocked and say something you'll regret, please allow me to give you a quick history lesson. Thomas Jefferson personally penned the Declaration of Independence. And while he was sent to France to request their assistance in the Reveloutionary War while the Constitution was written, he was the architect behind the entire structure of U.S. government. They used his ideas, his writings, his legislations from his time in the Virginia state legislature, and his protégé James Madison was there for the convention - representing Thomas Jefferson's entire plan. Furthermore, the Constitution has never seen a better friend or a more ardent defender, than Thomas Jefferson. So think very carefully before responding.

Don't like the federal government telling me I can't vote for someone who I think is doing a bang up job. Sorry. But then again, I'm a pretty independent person who doesn't like to defer to the State to tell me who I can vote for. I'm not sure why you like having your rights usurped like that.

I'm sure Thomas Jefferson got most of what he attempted right. Nobody is right 100% of the time and if he was responsible for the term limits on Presidents...well, he was wrong on that. Or do you think he was infallable?

Jefferson? He was damn near infallible.

But no my dear - he was not behind the term limits of presidents. That was all of America after the dirt bad FDR ignored the precedence set by George Washington and every other president after him, that two terms were more than enough for any one man. FDR served something asinine (I forget exactly - but like 4 terms) until he died. Everyone immediately ran to Congress and passed a term limit to ensure that would never happen again.

 

[P@triot]

It's a simple question Candy. The right of who? Does it say "militia"? Does it?

Sorry, I only read English. Try again.

Thank you!

 

[P@triot]

You are stating that you are right and all the decisions of the Supreme Court are null and void since the Court heard its first case. You are also implying that every single possible contingency which may arise in law must be written down within the four corners of the Document or it's outside the jurisdiction of ALL the Article III Courts.

You make all these assertions, but you provide nothing but your opinion as evidence without any substantiation to ground it in fact. You're a fucking fool!

Hyperbole much?

Let me help you out here junior because, well, you are struggling mightly. Obamacare is the perfect example. Congress passed an unconstitutional law in Obamacare (the federal government has no authority to enact legislation over healthcare and they have no authority to force citizens to purchase goods or services). People realized that and challenged it. Rightfully, it went to the Supreme Court. Becuase the Supreme Court is empowered to rule on laws as to whether or not they are Constitutional. But they are not empowered to decide what the Constitution itself means.

So, no, drama queen. I am not stating that "every decision of the Supreme Court is null and void". I am, however, simply stating the reality that you don't like - that the Supreme Court (nor any other body) is empowered to decide what the Constitition says simply because liberals are looking for a loophole.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You are stating that you are right and all the decisions of the Supreme Court are null and void since the Court heard its first case. You are also implying that every single possible contingency which may arise in law must be written down within the four corners of the Document or it's outside the jurisdiction of ALL the Article III Courts.

You make all these assertions, but you provide nothing but your opinion as evidence without any substantiation to ground it in fact. You're a fucking fool!

Hyperbole much?

Let me help you out here junior because, well, you are struggling mightly. Obamacare is the perfect example. Congress passed an unconstitutional law in Obamacare (the federal government has no authority to enact legislation over healthcare and they have no authority to force citizens to purchase goods or services). People realized that and challenged it. Rightfully, it went to the Supreme Court. Becuase the Supreme Court is empowered to rule on laws as to whether or not they are Constitutional. But they are not empowered to decide what the Constitution itself means.

So, no, drama queen. I am not stating that "every decision of the Supreme Court is null and void". I am, however, simply stating the reality that you don't like - that the Supreme Court (nor any other body) is empowered to decide what the Constitition says simply because liberals are looking for a loophole.

I'm not struggling at all fool. You are the projecting that circumstance and providing the deflection. You have nothing but your opinion. You opinion is worth SHIT against that of the Constitution, historical precedent and the intent of the Founders.

You talk about Obamacare being unconstitutional. Following YOUR LOGIC, how the fuck can that be, Putz? You claim SCOTUS can rule on the Constitutionality of laws, BUT they cannot interpret the Constitution. So on the one hand you affirm the necessity of Judicial Review, but on the other you claim the Court is denied the very tool used to determine the law's Constitutional status. That is the classic example of the snake swallowing its tail. Oh, and you will not even go near addressing that, "...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact...." That probably is owing to the fact you don't understand what it fucking means.

Give it up chump. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You can't formulate a decent argument with substantiation to support your vastly uninformed opinions. And all you have is a misguided opinion and an asshole from which to express it.

 

[P@triot]

This is as ignorant as it is wrong and ridiculous.

Typical answer when people are proven wrong and can't bring themselves to admit it.

 

[P@triot]

It's a simple question Candy. The right of who? Does it say "militia"? Does it?

Sorry, I only read English. Try again.

Well maybe you can read this English. From one of our founders - who clearly says the people and citizens and not "militias". Doh! That's got to sting a little, uh?

 

[P@triot]

You are stating that you are right and all the decisions of the Supreme Court are null and void since the Court heard its first case. You are also implying that every single possible contingency which may arise in law must be written down within the four corners of the Document or it's outside the jurisdiction of ALL the Article III Courts.

You make all these assertions, but you provide nothing but your opinion as evidence without any substantiation to ground it in fact. You're a fucking fool!

Hyperbole much?

Let me help you out here junior because, well, you are struggling mightly. Obamacare is the perfect example. Congress passed an unconstitutional law in Obamacare (the federal government has no authority to enact legislation over healthcare and they have no authority to force citizens to purchase goods or services). People realized that and challenged it. Rightfully, it went to the Supreme Court. Becuase the Supreme Court is empowered to rule on laws as to whether or not they are Constitutional. But they are not empowered to decide what the Constitution itself means.

So, no, drama queen. I am not stating that "every decision of the Supreme Court is null and void". I am, however, simply stating the reality that you don't like - that the Supreme Court (nor any other body) is empowered to decide what the Constitition says simply because liberals are looking for a loophole.

I'm not struggling at all fool. You are the projecting that circumstance and providing the deflection. You have nothing but your opinion. You opinion is worth SHIT against that of the Constitution, historical precedent and the intent of the Founders.

You talk about Obamacare being unconstitutional. Following YOUR LOGIC, how the fuck can that be, Putz? You claim SCOTUS can rule on the Constitutionality of laws, BUT they cannot interpret the Constitution. So on the one hand you affirm the necessity of Judicial Review, but on the other you claim the Court is denied the very tool used to determine the law's Constitutional status. That is the classic example of the snake swallowing its tail. Oh, and you will not even go near addressing that, "...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact...." That probably is owing to the fact you don't understand what it fucking means.

Give it up chump. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You can't formulate a decent argument with substantiation to support your vastly uninformed opinions. And all you have is a misguided opinion and an asshole from which to express it.

I can see why you are so angry. I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no governing body is empowered by the U.S. Constitution to decide what the Constitution says or means (because there is nothing to "interpret" - it says exactly what it says and it means exactly what it means).

And watching you flail around wildly is fall down hilarious. How can Obamacare be "unconstitutional"? Because the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate healthcare and it does not give the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. This was a very easy 9-0 decision. The problem is, Dumbocrats have stacked the Supreme Court with political activists instead of justices. Furthermore, Justice Roberts (the deciding justice in the case) decided to engage in political activism himself. He believed that allowing Obamacare would enrage the American people to the point that they would vote Barack Obama out of the White House (he stated as much when he said in his opinion "elections have consequences"). Yes. Yes the do Justice Roberts. And the system of checks and balances are supposed to limit the damage of those consequences. Instead of trying to influence the American people, he should have simply done his job. But - the Supreme Court had every right to hear that case and rule on it.

The courts job is to hear arguments on laws as to whether or not they are Constitutional (again - like Obamacare). It is not to rule or decide on the Constitution itself. They have zero Constitutional authority to decide that the 1st Amendment means "x". What they can do is decide if a new law which states nobody can yell "fag" in public violates the 1st Amendment or not.

As far as your last piece of nonsense regarding "appellate jurisdiction" - I completely addressed it twice already and explained it to you twice already (see everything I just said above). That applies to laws passed by Congress - not the Constitution itself. I asked you to show me where in the Constitution it grants any body the right to interpret the Constitution itself. Of course, you couldn't do it. So you went out, Googled a few terms, and then just copied and pasted the first thing that you thought sounded "legal".

Look junior....as I said previously in an analogy (to dumb it down to your level since the Constitution is clearly way above you) I asked you to prove you owned a red Lamborghini and you held up a white bunny and went "see...here it is".

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You are stating that you are right and all the decisions of the Supreme Court are null and void since the Court heard its first case. You are also implying that every single possible contingency which may arise in law must be written down within the four corners of the Document or it's outside the jurisdiction of ALL the Article III Courts.

You make all these assertions, but you provide nothing but your opinion as evidence without any substantiation to ground it in fact. You're a fucking fool!

Hyperbole much?

Let me help you out here junior because, well, you are struggling mightly. Obamacare is the perfect example. Congress passed an unconstitutional law in Obamacare (the federal government has no authority to enact legislation over healthcare and they have no authority to force citizens to purchase goods or services). People realized that and challenged it. Rightfully, it went to the Supreme Court. Becuase the Supreme Court is empowered to rule on laws as to whether or not they are Constitutional. But they are not empowered to decide what the Constitution itself means.

So, no, drama queen. I am not stating that "every decision of the Supreme Court is null and void". I am, however, simply stating the reality that you don't like - that the Supreme Court (nor any other body) is empowered to decide what the Constitition says simply because liberals are looking for a loophole.

I'm not struggling at all fool. You are the projecting that circumstance and providing the deflection. You have nothing but your opinion. You opinion is worth SHIT against that of the Constitution, historical precedent and the intent of the Founders.

You talk about Obamacare being unconstitutional. Following YOUR LOGIC, how the fuck can that be, Putz? You claim SCOTUS can rule on the Constitutionality of laws, BUT they cannot interpret the Constitution. So on the one hand you affirm the necessity of Judicial Review, but on the other you claim the Court is denied the very tool used to determine the law's Constitutional status. That is the classic example of the snake swallowing its tail. Oh, and you will not even go near addressing that, "...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact...." That probably is owing to the fact you don't understand what it fucking means.

Give it up chump. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You can't formulate a decent argument with substantiation to support your vastly uninformed opinions. And all you have is a misguided opinion and an asshole from which to express it.

I can see why you are so angry. I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no governing body is empowered by the U.S. Constitution to decide what the Constitution says or means (because there is nothing to "interpret" - it says exactly what it says and it means exactly what it means).

And watching you flail around wildly is fall down hilarious. How can Obamacare be "unconstitutional"? Because the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate healthcare and it does not give the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. This was a very easy 9-0 decision. The problem is, Dumbocrats have stacked the Supreme Court with political activists instead of justices. Furthermore, Justice Roberts (the deciding justice in the case) decided to engage in political activism himself. He believed that allowing Obamacare would enrage the American people to the point that they would vote Barack Obama out of the White House (he stated as much when he said in his opinion "elections have consequences"). Yes. Yes the do Justice Roberts. And the system of checks and balances are supposed to limit the damage of those consequences. Instead of trying to influence the American people, he should have simply done his job. But - the Supreme Court had every right to hear that case and rule on it.

The courts job is to hear arguments on laws as to whether or not they are Constitutional (again - like Obamacare). It is not to rule or decide on the Constitution itself. They have zero Constitutional authority to decide that the 1st Amendment means "x". What they can do is decide if a new law which states nobody can yell "fag" in public violates the 1st Amendment or not.

As far as your last piece of nonsense regarding "appellate jurisdiction" - I completely addressed it twice already and explained it to you twice already (see everything I just said above). That applies to laws passed by Congress - not the Constitution itself. I asked you to show me where in the Constitution it grants any body the right to interpret the Constitution itself. Of course, you couldn't do it. So you went out, Googled a few terms, and then just copied and pasted the first thing that you thought sounded "legal".

Look junior....as I said previously in an analogy (to dumb it down to your level since the Constitution is clearly way above you) I asked you to prove you owned a red Lamborghini and you held up a white bunny and went "see...here it is".

You haven't proven jack shit! All you've provided is your uninformed opinion and that is not proof of anything but your "opinions"! Here is additional proof that your are wrong in your misguided belief that if something is not written precisely within the Constitution then it is unconstitutional, which is bullshit ignorance on your part.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. ~~The Federalist #78, A. Hamilton ~~

Above in the bold/RED sentence is your argument that everything must be delineated in detail within the Constitution being destroyed by one of the Founders who wrote this in 1787. Unlike Jefferson whose 1820 quotation was your single citation during our exchange, Hamilton was actually in the Hall directly taking part in the construction of the Constitution and was therefore able to relate the Founders intent as Publius in the Papers.

The sentence above in BOLD BLUE goes directly to the debunking of your inane assertion. Hamilton made crystal clear that judges, including SCOTUS, were empowered to INTERPERT LAW, that the Constitution was LAW, and therefore, Judges were empowered to interpret the Constitution. Q.E.D.

That was the intent of the Founders from the pen of one of the Founders. That is the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. You are wrong and have been wrong. You have been informed of your error. However, I doubt that the facts will not get through that block of granite on your shoulders, you bloody fool!

 

[Fair&Balanced]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

And this is what you get when RWNJ’s try to interpret the Constitution; you pick and choose which words matter, decide that some things you hate are unconstitutional while others are just spiffy….

Anyway...

We have a constitution based on faith that those elected will do their duty. In modern times we have a Congress and a President that pick and choose their duties.

This is why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to further perfect the document. Something like one branch of Congress must give the other branch’s work an up or down floor vote within 90 days. No more having appointed “Majority leaders” acting as traffic cops and bills never getting a vote. Something like advise and consent be on a time table of no more than 6 months. Something like the Executive must enforce all laws on the books that are under the branch’s purview.

In truth, I would go further with line item vetoes and getting rid of the war powers act. But I think scheduled and sober analysis of the Constitution once every 50 years or so is a sign that you’re updating what is in effect, your business plan.

The Court, is in fact supposed to be that "voice" but has unfortunately became nothing but a puppet for the other two branches in recent years. It sickens me when I read about a left leaning or right leaning justice, they should be leaning one way and one way only, towards the COTUS, and it is SUPPOSED to be within their power to say "no that is unconstitutional" or "no you've exceeded your authority" based solely on the law, not based on whether they agree with what either Congress or the President did.

I'm sick of Democrats AND Republicans playing games with our government and the Court not having the integrity to step in.

 

[g5000]

First you say this:

I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make.

And then you proceed to speak for the framers!

That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit.

O'rly?

George Washington wrote 88 Executive Orders. Adams wrote 11, Jefferson wrote 44, and Madison wrote 11.

 

[candycorn]

First you say this:

I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make.

And then you proceed to speak for the framers!

That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit.

O'rly?

George Washington wrote 88 Executive Orders. Adams wrote 11, Jefferson wrote 44, and Madison wrote 11.

EO are not necessarily indicative of the executive wishing to thwart or otherwise not fulfill their duties.

 

[candycorn]

It's a simple question Candy. The right of who? Does it say "militia"? Does it?

Sorry, I only read English. Try again.

Well maybe you can read this English. From one of our founders - who clearly says the people and citizens and not "militias". Doh! That's got to sting a little, uh?

View attachment 73314

Did Sam endorse that webpage? LOL.

It says Militia. It said militia when you started. Chances are it will say militia tomorrow. It says, said, will say, it for a reason.

 

[g5000]

First you say this:

I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make.

And then you proceed to speak for the framers!

That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit.

O'rly?

George Washington wrote 88 Executive Orders. Adams wrote 11, Jefferson wrote 44, and Madison wrote 11.

EO are not necessarily indicative of the executive wishing to thwart or otherwise not fulfill their duties.

A point I have attempted to make with the rubes every time they shriek and shout over Obama's EOs, both real and imagined.

 

[candycorn]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

And this is what you get when RWNJ’s try to interpret the Constitution; you pick and choose which words matter, decide that some things you hate are unconstitutional while others are just spiffy….

Anyway...

We have a constitution based on faith that those elected will do their duty. In modern times we have a Congress and a President that pick and choose their duties.

This is why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to further perfect the document. Something like one branch of Congress must give the other branch’s work an up or down floor vote within 90 days. No more having appointed “Majority leaders” acting as traffic cops and bills never getting a vote. Something like advise and consent be on a time table of no more than 6 months. Something like the Executive must enforce all laws on the books that are under the branch’s purview.

In truth, I would go further with line item vetoes and getting rid of the war powers act. But I think scheduled and sober analysis of the Constitution once every 50 years or so is a sign that you’re updating what is in effect, your business plan.

The Court, is in fact supposed to be that "voice" but has unfortunately became nothing but a puppet for the other two branches in recent years. It sickens me when I read about a left leaning or right leaning justice, they should be leaning one way and one way only, towards the COTUS, and it is SUPPOSED to be within their power to say "no that is unconstitutional" or "no you've exceeded your authority" based solely on the law, not based on whether they agree with what either Congress or the President did.

I'm sick of Democrats AND Republicans playing games with our government and the Court not having the integrity to step in.

I imagine that almost all Presidents in our lifetimes at one time or the other were equally vexed by the Supreme Court and lower courts. It’s a sign that things are on the right path.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

And this is what you get when RWNJ’s try to interpret the Constitution; you pick and choose which words matter, decide that some things you hate are unconstitutional while others are just spiffy….

Anyway...

We have a constitution based on faith that those elected will do their duty. In modern times we have a Congress and a President that pick and choose their duties.

This is why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to further perfect the document. Something like one branch of Congress must give the other branch’s work an up or down floor vote within 90 days. No more having appointed “Majority leaders” acting as traffic cops and bills never getting a vote. Something like advise and consent be on a time table of no more than 6 months. Something like the Executive must enforce all laws on the books that are under the branch’s purview.

In truth, I would go further with line item vetoes and getting rid of the war powers act. But I think scheduled and sober analysis of the Constitution once every 50 years or so is a sign that you’re updating what is in effect, your business plan.

The Court, is in fact supposed to be that "voice" but has unfortunately became nothing but a puppet for the other two branches in recent years. It sickens me when I read about a left leaning or right leaning justice, they should be leaning one way and one way only, towards the COTUS, and it is SUPPOSED to be within their power to say "no that is unconstitutional" or "no you've exceeded your authority" based solely on the law, not based on whether they agree with what either Congress or the President did.

I'm sick of Democrats AND Republicans playing games with our government and the Court not having the integrity to step in.

I imagine that almost all Presidents in our lifetimes at one time or the other were equally vexed by the Supreme Court and lower courts. It’s a sign that things are on the right path.

I don't know that I would agree that a President constantly trying to expand his powers and being slapped down by SCOTUS is a good thing, but I take your point.

 

[candycorn]

Anyone who thinks that term limits--ones that tell you you can't run for office or you can't vote for someone whom you want--obviously are at odds with the Constitution.

“The second feature I dislike, and strongly dislike, is the abandonment in every instance of the principle of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President. Reason and experience tell us that the first magistrate will always be reelected if he may be reelected. He is then an officer for life.” – Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (December 20, 1787)

Oops.... And my dear? Before you go off half-cocked and say something you'll regret, please allow me to give you a quick history lesson. Thomas Jefferson personally penned the Declaration of Independence. And while he was sent to France to request their assistance in the Reveloutionary War while the Constitution was written, he was the architect behind the entire structure of U.S. government. They used his ideas, his writings, his legislations from his time in the Virginia state legislature, and his protégé James Madison was there for the convention - representing Thomas Jefferson's entire plan. Furthermore, the Constitution has never seen a better friend or a more ardent defender, than Thomas Jefferson. So think very carefully before responding.

Don't like the federal government telling me I can't vote for someone who I think is doing a bang up job. Sorry. But then again, I'm a pretty independent person who doesn't like to defer to the State to tell me who I can vote for. I'm not sure why you like having your rights usurped like that.

I'm sure Thomas Jefferson got most of what he attempted right. Nobody is right 100% of the time and if he was responsible for the term limits on Presidents...well, he was wrong on that. Or do you think he was infallable?

Jefferson? He was damn near infallible.

But no my dear - he was not behind the term limits of presidents. That was all of America after the dirt bad FDR ignored the precedence set by George Washington and every other president after him, that two terms were more than enough for any one man. FDR served something asinine (I forget exactly - but like 4 terms) until he died. Everyone immediately ran to Congress and passed a term limit to ensure that would never happen again.

Jefferson (like most people) was human therefore, given to mistakes of both pride and prejudice.

 

[candycorn]

You are fucking wrong again Mr. Constitutional Expert! First read and understand Article III. The powers vested and the scope of SCOTUS are laid out there. SCOTUS was given APPELATE POWERS, dummy!

ARTICLE III, § 2, Clause 2;
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. [Emphasis Added]

The appellate powers of SCOTUS are part of the checks and balances incorporated throughout the Constitution, fool! See the Federalist #81 to gain some perspective to the Founders' intent.

You prove beyond any doubt that you don't know JACK SHIT about the Constitution, and your self-professed depth of things Constitutional is absolutely notwithstanding you bloody idiot!

“It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.… The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and cosovereign within themselves.” – Thomas Jefferson (September 28, 1820)

Jefferson was not there in Philadelphia when the Constitution was written. But Jefferson, really didn't agree with a number of decisions of Chief Justice Marshall during that period so his comments are only his opinion and not having any more weight that other opinions without substantiation. His opinion is NOT part of the Constitution is it! Your dodge and deflection is duly noted shit for brains. Now stay on topic fool, and stop trying to move the goal posts, idiot!

Except that Thomas Jefferson was the architect behind our entire structure of government. He didn't have to be in the room junior (he was in France lobbying for their assistance with the Revolutionary War) when the Constitution was written to be the one who designed it. They used Jefferson's ideas, his writings, his legislation while in the Virginia state legislature, and his protégé James Madison was there the entire time representing Jefferson's voice for his design.

Considering he's the architect behind the entire damn thing - I would say his voice carries more than every U.S. citizen combined when it comes to what the Constitution actually says.

I always like to ask people this:

What parts of the Constitution, as we have the benefit of 230+ years worth of hindsight, did the framers get wrong?

 

[candycorn]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

And this is what you get when RWNJ’s try to interpret the Constitution; you pick and choose which words matter, decide that some things you hate are unconstitutional while others are just spiffy….

Anyway...

We have a constitution based on faith that those elected will do their duty. In modern times we have a Congress and a President that pick and choose their duties.

This is why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to further perfect the document. Something like one branch of Congress must give the other branch’s work an up or down floor vote within 90 days. No more having appointed “Majority leaders” acting as traffic cops and bills never getting a vote. Something like advise and consent be on a time table of no more than 6 months. Something like the Executive must enforce all laws on the books that are under the branch’s purview.

In truth, I would go further with line item vetoes and getting rid of the war powers act. But I think scheduled and sober analysis of the Constitution once every 50 years or so is a sign that you’re updating what is in effect, your business plan.

The Court, is in fact supposed to be that "voice" but has unfortunately became nothing but a puppet for the other two branches in recent years. It sickens me when I read about a left leaning or right leaning justice, they should be leaning one way and one way only, towards the COTUS, and it is SUPPOSED to be within their power to say "no that is unconstitutional" or "no you've exceeded your authority" based solely on the law, not based on whether they agree with what either Congress or the President did.

I'm sick of Democrats AND Republicans playing games with our government and the Court not having the integrity to step in.

I imagine that almost all Presidents in our lifetimes at one time or the other were equally vexed by the Supreme Court and lower courts. It’s a sign that things are on the right path.

I don't know that I would agree that a President constantly trying to expand his powers and being slapped down by SCOTUS is a good thing, but I take your point.

When Scalia died, the President (executive) ordered flags be flown at half staff. Boom; executive order.
Signing statements are a different animal all together. Obama’s bullshit “czar” posts….different animal all together although they were quickly lumped in with every other euphemism that had come before it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

And this is what you get when RWNJ’s try to interpret the Constitution; you pick and choose which words matter, decide that some things you hate are unconstitutional while others are just spiffy….

Anyway...

We have a constitution based on faith that those elected will do their duty. In modern times we have a Congress and a President that pick and choose their duties.

This is why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to further perfect the document. Something like one branch of Congress must give the other branch’s work an up or down floor vote within 90 days. No more having appointed “Majority leaders” acting as traffic cops and bills never getting a vote. Something like advise and consent be on a time table of no more than 6 months. Something like the Executive must enforce all laws on the books that are under the branch’s purview.

In truth, I would go further with line item vetoes and getting rid of the war powers act. But I think scheduled and sober analysis of the Constitution once every 50 years or so is a sign that you’re updating what is in effect, your business plan.

The Court, is in fact supposed to be that "voice" but has unfortunately became nothing but a puppet for the other two branches in recent years. It sickens me when I read about a left leaning or right leaning justice, they should be leaning one way and one way only, towards the COTUS, and it is SUPPOSED to be within their power to say "no that is unconstitutional" or "no you've exceeded your authority" based solely on the law, not based on whether they agree with what either Congress or the President did.

I'm sick of Democrats AND Republicans playing games with our government and the Court not having the integrity to step in.

I imagine that almost all Presidents in our lifetimes at one time or the other were equally vexed by the Supreme Court and lower courts. It’s a sign that things are on the right path.

I don't know that I would agree that a President constantly trying to expand his powers and being slapped down by SCOTUS is a good thing, but I take your point.

When Scalia died, the President (executive) ordered flags be flown at half staff. Boom; executive order.
Signing statements are a different animal all together. Obama’s bullshit “czar” posts….different animal all together although they were quickly lumped in with every other euphemism that had come before it.

Of course not every EO signed by Obama has been some evil plot , but there have been several that blatantly ignored current federal law. And in those cases the Court should quickly and decisively come down and say "no , you enforce laws, you don't make them" but that hasn't always been the case, we've seen several times where even Justices have been like "well the law really needs to change and Congress won't do it, so maybe the President SHOULD be able to " The answer to that is NO, no matter what the President should NEVER be able to make law, that's not his job, that is NOT what he was elected to do, if the People want those laws changed, we will affect those changes through the appropriate branch.

 

[candycorn]

And this is what you get when RWNJ’s try to interpret the Constitution; you pick and choose which words matter, decide that some things you hate are unconstitutional while others are just spiffy….

Anyway...

We have a constitution based on faith that those elected will do their duty. In modern times we have a Congress and a President that pick and choose their duties.

This is why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to further perfect the document. Something like one branch of Congress must give the other branch’s work an up or down floor vote within 90 days. No more having appointed “Majority leaders” acting as traffic cops and bills never getting a vote. Something like advise and consent be on a time table of no more than 6 months. Something like the Executive must enforce all laws on the books that are under the branch’s purview.

In truth, I would go further with line item vetoes and getting rid of the war powers act. But I think scheduled and sober analysis of the Constitution once every 50 years or so is a sign that you’re updating what is in effect, your business plan.

The Court, is in fact supposed to be that "voice" but has unfortunately became nothing but a puppet for the other two branches in recent years. It sickens me when I read about a left leaning or right leaning justice, they should be leaning one way and one way only, towards the COTUS, and it is SUPPOSED to be within their power to say "no that is unconstitutional" or "no you've exceeded your authority" based solely on the law, not based on whether they agree with what either Congress or the President did.

I'm sick of Democrats AND Republicans playing games with our government and the Court not having the integrity to step in.

I imagine that almost all Presidents in our lifetimes at one time or the other were equally vexed by the Supreme Court and lower courts. It’s a sign that things are on the right path.

I don't know that I would agree that a President constantly trying to expand his powers and being slapped down by SCOTUS is a good thing, but I take your point.

When Scalia died, the President (executive) ordered flags be flown at half staff. Boom; executive order.
Signing statements are a different animal all together. Obama’s bullshit “czar” posts….different animal all together although they were quickly lumped in with every other euphemism that had come before it.

Of course not every EO signed by Obama has been some evil plot , but there have been several that blatantly ignored current federal law. And in those cases the Court should quickly and decisively come down and say "no , you enforce laws, you don't make them" but that hasn't always been the case, we've seen several times where even Justices have been like "well the law really needs to change and Congress won't do it, so maybe the President SHOULD be able to " The answer to that is NO, no matter what the President should NEVER be able to make law, that's not his job, that is NOT what he was elected to do, if the People want those laws changed, we will affect those changes through the appropriate branch.

<sarcasm>

You should watch this informative video….it will explain Obama’s executive orders.



<sarcasm off>

While I wouldn’t want to get rid of EO all together, if that goes the way of the Model T…great.