The Tea Party loves the Constitution?

[daveman]

so they admit that they want to change it but they make lame excuses in a desperate attempt to justify their contradictions.

There is no contradiction. No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.

There IS a contradiction. It was shown in my post and IF you hadn;t edited my poost and removed 90% of it so you could avoid admitting and reposting that contradiction as you pretend it doesn't exist.

here is my full and complete post.

uh in case you missed it there has been evidence in this very thread that the right wishes to change at least some of what rightwinger listed.

one even tried to claim that

They key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.

so they admit that they want to change it but they make lame excuses in a desperate attempt to justify their contradictions.

Try not to stumble over yourself as you run away from it's entire context this time.

Typical leftist: Make up shit and insist it's there.

There is no contradiction. Now stamp your feet and pout some more.

 

[daveman]

The problem here is that conservatives "lose" the argument on whether or not the Constitution is a Liberal or Conservative document. Or rather..that's basically more an internal argument among Conservatives..it's something Liberals already knew. So, to make themselves feel better..so they generated this brand. Liberals are Liberals..

I didn't hear much bellyaching from the Conservative spectrum about torture, illegal wiretaps, denying trials and habeas. I did hear it from the Liberal side of the spectrum. So your argument concerning "indivdual liberty" is basically in the crapper. Unless you are talking about indivdual liberty for corporations who have magically become "people" in the eyes of the law. Then..you are on solid ground.

Like I told the other idiot, I will defend anything I say, but I will not defend anything you insist I've said but in reality haven't.

Then your opinion on warrantless wiretaps, denial of speedy trials, suspension of Habeas, torture, and secret prisons is what..exactly?

Perhaps..starting there would be a good point.

Not interested in playing your silly little games.

 

[daveman]

Lars Erik Nelson died a few years back..I can't speak for him..per se. But I doubt very much if any of his views would be welcome in today's GOP..just as someone like Jack Kemp would be forced out of Today's GOP.

Speculation. Got anything concrete?

Oh. If you did, you would have posted it.

Concrete? I pointed to two people, both republican, that I think would not be at home in today's GOP. Don't know how much more concrete one can get then that.

Do you know what "speculation" is?

 

[Intense]

Then why do they constantly want to change it?

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to burn flags, bibles, Korans to incite hate. How about you????? Do you support action by mandate or persuasion?????
Where is Mosque construction being outlawed????? Do you know how many mosques are in the United States to date????? 1209.
AMERICAN MUSLIM DEMOGRAPHICS - MUSLIM AMERICAN POPULATIONS OUTREACH PROGRAMS

Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one


How about restoring instead. I live in NYC, where if I was even attacked by a mob, if I used an unregistered gun, a knife, even a garbage can lid as a weapon to defend myself, I am in violation of the law. Anything I use as a weapon, is against the law. Gun's have to be individually registered for a fee, that is perpetual, as long as you own the guns.


Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety

As opposed to ignoring the obvious for political reasons and putting lives at risk?????
Coulda-woulda-shoulda, doesn't fly anymore.



14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays

So if you hide out here for 10 years without getting busted, you are entitled to a free pass, right????? That makes sense to you????? Where else in the world does that happen?????
Maybe you can elaborate on the Gay thing????? What is with that?



16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
How's, no taxation without representation sound to you????? I think the focus is more on accountability, disclosure, and balanced books. Hows that sound to you as an original concept????? Remember "Enumerated Powers" and "Government by the consent of the Governed"????? Let me help you there..... Once Upon a time......long ago, before we were even born.......




17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

You do realize that once upon a time Senators were elected by the State legislators, not the people. Do you know why????? Well... let me tell you... See the Senators had a sacred trust, part of that trust, specifically given to them, not the House of Representatives, was to protect the States from the Encroachment of the Federal Government. The picking of Senators from the State Legislatures more guaranteed, loyalties to the State, not like today, where the Senators first loyalties are generally to the Party. Maybe part of the problem was that the Trust of the Security of the State went to the wrong body, maybe the trust should have gone to the House Of Representatives, who more represents the common man, not the Blue Blood Country Club Crowd, the Oligarchy Elite?? Look at the comparison to England with The Crown, the House of Lords, and The House of Commons. That was the template. Senate loyalty needs to be returned to the protection of State Authority and Interest, at least, in part. How would you suggest doing that?????

 

[daveman]

The Conservatives of today would have lynched the founding fathers

Well played, troll. Well played.

Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)

The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet

So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?

That's completely irrational.

 

[rightwinger]

Then why do they constantly want to change it?

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to burn flags, bibles, Korans to incite hate. How about you????? Do you support action by mandate or persuasion?????
Where is Mosque construction being outlawed????? Do you know how many mosques are in the United States to date????? 1209.
AMERICAN MUSLIM DEMOGRAPHICS - MUSLIM AMERICAN POPULATIONS OUTREACH PROGRAMS

Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one


How about restoring instead. I live in NYC, where if I was even attacked by a mob, if I used an unregistered gun, a knife, even a garbage can lid as a weapon to defend myself, I am in violation of the law. Anything I use as a weapon, is against the law. Gun's have to be individually registered for a fee, that is perpetual, as long as you own the guns.


Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety

As opposed to ignoring the obvious for political reasons and putting lives at risk?????
Coulda-woulda-shoulda, doesn't fly anymore.



14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays

So if you hide out here for 10 years without getting busted, you are entitled to a free pass, right????? That makes sense to you????? Where else in the world does that happen?????
Maybe you can elaborate on the Gay thing????? What is with that?



16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
How's, no taxation without representation sound to you????? I think the focus is more on accountability, disclosure, and balanced books. Hows that sound to you as an original concept????? Remember "Enumerated Powers" and "Government by the consent of the Governed"????? Let me help you there..... Once Upon a time......long ago, before we were even born.......




17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

You do realize that once upon a time Senators were elected by the State legislators, not the people. Do you know why????? Well... let me tell you... See the Senators had a sacred trust, part of that trust, specifically given to them, not the House of Representatives, was to protect the States from the Encroachment of the Federal Government. The picking of Senators from the State Legislatures more guaranteed, loyalties to the State, not like today, where the Senators first loyalties are generally to the Party. Maybe part of the problem was that the Trust of the Security of the State went to the wrong body, maybe the trust should have gone to the House Of Representatives, who more represents the common man, not the Blue Blood Country Club Crowd, the Oligarchy Elite?? Look at the comparison to England with The Crown, the House of Lords, and The House of Commons. That was the template. Senate loyalty needs to be returned to the protection of State Authority and Interest, at least, in part. How would you suggest doing that?????

Thanks for the great post...

Once again proving the right wing conservatives do not like the Constitution they claim to love so much

 

[rightwinger]

Well played, troll. Well played.

Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)

The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet

So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?

That's completely irrational.

The Revolution was not about small government

It was about wanting our own government

 

[Intense]

Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)

The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet

So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?

That's completely irrational.

The Revolution was not about small government

It was about wanting our own government

Seems we are still waiting. You obviously don't have a clue, and wouldn't understand the rule of law or due process if you tripped over it, which you seem to do every day. Now tell us more about how you know everything and we know nothing. It's nice make believe. Tell me another story about evil conservatives and how collectivism is Constitutional. Tell us about how we hate the Constitution. Idiot.

 

[Liberty]

Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)

The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet

So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?

That's completely irrational.

The Revolution was not about small government

It was about wanting our own government

you are soooooooooooooooooooooooo ignorant.

 

[Liberty]

Principle 5. Limited Government

3. "Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)

Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty

4. The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.

 

[rightwinger]

So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?

That's completely irrational.

The Revolution was not about small government

It was about wanting our own government

Seems we are still waiting. You obviously don't have a clue, and wouldn't understand the rule of law or due process if you tripped over it, which you seem to do every day. Now tell us more about how you know everything and we know nothing. It's nice make believe. Tell me another story about evil conservatives and how collectivism is Constitutional. Tell us about how we hate the Constitution. Idiot.

Hmmmmmm....interesting

No facts, no point of view, nothing to refute except "You are an idiot"

I will take that as a complement, come back when you have something to add to the discussion

 

[Sallow]

Like I told the other idiot, I will defend anything I say, but I will not defend anything you insist I've said but in reality haven't.

Then your opinion on warrantless wiretaps, denial of speedy trials, suspension of Habeas, torture, and secret prisons is what..exactly?

Perhaps..starting there would be a good point.

Not interested in playing your silly little games.

Not playing games. Just asking for clarification and specifics.

Without establishing those..there is no real point to start from.

 

[rightwinger]

Principle 5. Limited Government

3. "Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)

Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty

4. The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.

Wow......impressive
You are very good with the Google. Nice cut and paste from an ultra conservative website trying to "rescue the republic". Homeschool material for those trying to raise little Republicans
Doesn't mean anything....but nice effort on your part

 

[Sallow]

Speculation. Got anything concrete?

Oh. If you did, you would have posted it.

Concrete? I pointed to two people, both republican, that I think would not be at home in today's GOP. Don't know how much more concrete one can get then that.

Do you know what "speculation" is?

Okay.

Start with how you feel their ideas and orientation would fit in today's GOP.

 

[Liberty]

Principle 5. Limited Government

3. "Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)

Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty

4. The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.

Wow......impressive
You are very good with the Google. Nice cut and paste from an ultra conservative website trying to "rescue the republic". Homeschool material for those trying to raise little Republicans
Doesn't mean anything....but nice effort on your part

Now that you have discredited the messenger, care to source a counter to the message?
Or perhaps all you have is red herrings left?
Trading words with you is pathetic in how easy it is to dismantle everything you say. You are so naked in intellect that the very hint of a rational thought entering your pea sized brain is anathema to the unfortunate infestation of ignorance that is the main component of your tragic life. Pitiful doesn't begin to describe.

 

[jillian]

Well played, troll. Well played.

Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)

The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet

So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?

That's completely irrational.

the pretend constitutionalists today are not 'small government' because they want government to legislate the things THEY wanted legislated. For example, they want the government to interfere with my body and force me to carry a child to term even if i am raped or the victim of incest.

they want to prohibit a next of kin from making the final decisions about a loved ones' end of life choices if THEY disagree with them

they aren't small government at all.

and i don't think we'd be very accepting of the founding fathers' idea of government either... one where women couldn't vote and blacks weren't even considered full people and slavery was legal.

 

[xotoxi]

Then why do they constantly want to change it?

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much

Don't forget that faction of the Tea Party who want to do away with the Third Amendment so we can save money not building any more barracks.

 

[Liberty]

Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)

The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet

So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?

That's completely irrational.

the pretend constitutionalists today are not 'small government' because they want government to legislate the things THEY wanted legislated. For example, they want the government to interfere with my body and force me to carry a child to term even if i am raped or the victim of incest.

they want to prohibit a next of kin from making the final decisions about a loved ones' end of life choices if THEY disagree with them

they aren't small government at all.

and i don't think we'd be very accepting of the founding fathers' idea of government either... one where women couldn't vote and blacks weren't even considered full people and slavery was legal.

true conservatives would rather keep abortion a state issue, or a constitutional amendment. Can you name one, just one individual choice in liberty that is not abortion or gay rights? Anything at all that you are for besides those?

Also, I could have swore I have educated you on the true meaning of the 3/5ths clause before. Are you seriously throwing that out just to keep a talking point? (and an ignorant one I might add) Come on now...

 

[Sallow]

Principle 5. Limited Government

3. "Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)

Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty

4. The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.

Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)

The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet

So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?

That's completely irrational.

the pretend constitutionalists today are not 'small government' because they want government to legislate the things THEY wanted legislated. For example, they want the government to interfere with my body and force me to carry a child to term even if i am raped or the victim of incest.

they want to prohibit a next of kin from making the final decisions about a loved ones' end of life choices if THEY disagree with them

they aren't small government at all.

and i don't think we'd be very accepting of the founding fathers' idea of government either... one where women couldn't vote and blacks weren't even considered full people and slavery was legal.

I think you will find the same group of people that want women to be human incubators, also have no problem with rich couples tossing away fertilized eggs once they get the "right" one through in vitro, having the state carry out the death penalty with out absolutely establishing its the right thing to do and sending kids off to wars regardless of whether they are justified or not.

 

[Liberty]

Principle 5. Limited Government

3. "Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)

Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty

4. The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.

So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?

That's completely irrational.

the pretend constitutionalists today are not 'small government' because they want government to legislate the things THEY wanted legislated. For example, they want the government to interfere with my body and force me to carry a child to term even if i am raped or the victim of incest.

they want to prohibit a next of kin from making the final decisions about a loved ones' end of life choices if THEY disagree with them

they aren't small government at all.

and i don't think we'd be very accepting of the founding fathers' idea of government either... one where women couldn't vote and blacks weren't even considered full people and slavery was legal.

I think you will find the same group of people that want women to be human incubators, also have no problem with rich couples tossing away fertilized eggs once they get the "right" one through in vitro, having the state carry out the death penalty with out absolutely establishing its the right thing to do and sending kids off to wars regardless of whether they are justified or not.

Wow. You really do live in a fantasy world.