The Tea Party loves the Constitution?

[The T]

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

SOURCE for every assertion? By the numbers.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Who's wanting to change what?

 

[Sallow]

You're right, but not in the way you think.

The Founding Fathers were classical liberals: They believed personal liberty of the individual was the most important facet of society, and wrote the Constitution to limit government's ability to interfere with that liberty.

However, modern liberalism has nothing to do with individual liberties. It's concerned with people as a collective, and the collective is more important than the individual. Individual freedoms are unimportant.

Modern conservatives are classical liberals.

You can deny this, but not credibly.

Yeah I am right..and in the exact way I think.

And saying "Modern Conservatives" are "Classical Liberals" is laughable.

They would be better compared to Tories or Whigs.

Thing is We are. The Founders were classical Liberals whom cherished Liberty across the spectrum...but they tempered it with the Rule Of LAW...this is where Statist DOLTS as you get tripped up.

"Statist" gotta love Ayn Rand. Possibly the worst author of this century or any other.

What you cherish as "Liberty" and "Freedom" is the Liberty and Freedom of:

-Businesses to lock garment workers into a hot room and expose them to being killed in fires..
-Businesses to form monolopies and squash competition.
-Businesses to dump lots of cash into politicians they like to get legislation favorable to them.
-Businesses to outsource jobs.
-Businesses to use cheap materials or force jobs to be expediated regardless of the risk to employees.
-Businesses to dump all sorts of crap into the environment.

Those and other specious freedoms are not in the spirit of the Constitution. Not in a pig's eye.

 

[kwc57]

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

You're going to need to provide some documentation to back up your claims. May I suggest links to actual Tea Party sites where this is part of the individual groups platform. I've got a feeling that what you will find instead is a call for lower taxes and smaller government.

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.

And in case you missed it, the OP is broadbrushing a whole movement with the actions of a few. You are of course aware that there are pro-life liberals/Democrats and pro-choice conservatives/Republicans aren't you? Of course you are. Parties and movements define core values that their candidate generally adhere to, but not always. Each candidate brings his own individual flavor to the mix. You still have not disproved my point. If you go to the various tea party pages and look at the rallying points of their group, it is lower takes, free markets and limited government......period. That is what unites them. What individual candidates espouse is just that, their own personal view.

 

[The T]

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

SOURCE for every assertion? By the numbers.

Here ya go.

Candidates Who Want to Amend or Repeal Sections of the US Constitution

I put this up before.

And what's WRONG with the 17th? Plenty. It should be repealed back to Original Intent.

The 16th we can do without as well. Why does this bee in your bonnet bother you?

 

[Sallow]

SOURCE for every assertion? By the numbers.

Here ya go.

Candidates Who Want to Amend or Repeal Sections of the US Constitution

I put this up before.

And what's WRONG with the 17th? Plenty. It should be repealed back to Origininal Intent.

The 16th we can do without as well. Why does this bee in your bonnet bother you?

Which is it? That no tea party candidate wants to change the Constitution or that you agree with the changes?

Man this is getting complicated.

 

[The T]

Here ya go.

Candidates Who Want to Amend or Repeal Sections of the US Constitution

I put this up before.

And what's WRONG with the 17th? Plenty. It should be repealed back to Origininal Intent.

The 16th we can do without as well. Why does this bee in your bonnet bother you?

Which is it? That no tea party candidate wants to change the Constitution or that you agree with the changes?

Man this is getting complicated.

I wanted clarification. Now...Answer the question. Or does it bother you that people want their fellow citizens to be responsible for themselves instead of being leeches on the rest of us?

 

[Nosmo King]

Clinton downsized the military.

To get people out he first offered a comical early retirement. A rew took it, most laughed at it.

Then he made a new rule (a breach of our contracts) That if you hadn't made a certain rank by a certain time, you would be kicked out. You ever see your bosses job, and think to yourself; "I don't want that job"? We lost a lot of senior men and women with that move. No one was promoted to fill the holes.

Then he made discrimination legal.

If you were not under a certain amount of body fat you were kicked out. That is discrimination, and a breach of contract.

And then he legalised theft.

Anyone kicked out lost 1/2 of thier breach of contract money on the day they were discharged, then the military would send you a letter telling you that you got too much and took the rest out of tax returns. Unless you could afford a very good lawyer.


Now, Where the hell was the aclu? Where were YOU when the men and women that volunteered to fight and die for this country were getting fucked over?

I'll tell you. You were all cheering, b/c none of you give a shit.

And you think the ACLU was derelect because....

Did President Clinton act without constitutional authority? Did he disband the Amry or Navy? There are provisons in the constitution establishing both those branches.

Do you understand what the constitution is and how it works?

Just because decisions were made that help deflate the military-industial complex, it doesn't mean that the constitution was violated.

You would have had a fit in 1928! The Kellogg-Briand pact would have made your ears bleed! And, you'd have a Republican president to kick around!

It's always nice to get my hatred of democrats reconfirmed every now and then.

Your utter disreguard for honorable men and women has been echoed by every other dem I explain this too. You always have excuses for breaking the law as long as it's the laws that fuck over honorable people.

Thanks for proving that my decision to never ever vote (d) ever again, was the right one.

Breaking the law?!?! What law? Be specific!

 

[Sallow]

And what's WRONG with the 17th? Plenty. It should be repealed back to Origininal Intent.

The 16th we can do without as well. Why does this bee in your bonnet bother you?

Which is it? That no tea party candidate wants to change the Constitution or that you agree with the changes?

Man this is getting complicated.

I wanted clarification. Now...Answer the question. Or does it bother you that people want their fellow citizens to be responsible for themselves instead of being leeches on the rest of us?

Here's clarification.

The OP alluded to Tea Party candidates wanting to change the Constitution. Others and myself backed that up..while people like yourself asked for proof.

Now you've changed the goal posts.

Typical.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

I would agree that what has become the tea party only wants to uphold the parts of the Constitution they like, however, let's not pretend the left doesn't do exactly the same thing.

Furthermore, just because an amendment was added to the Constitution, doesn't mean it's a good amendment. I'm addressing your comments regarding the 16th and 17th.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

17th; the electoral college sucks ass. How many Presidents have won the popular vote, but not been elected?.

What does the 17th Amendment have to do with the Electoral College?

 

[Two Thumbs]

And you think the ACLU was derelect because....

Did President Clinton act without constitutional authority? Did he disband the Amry or Navy? There are provisons in the constitution establishing both those branches.

Do you understand what the constitution is and how it works?

Just because decisions were made that help deflate the military-industial complex, it doesn't mean that the constitution was violated.

You would have had a fit in 1928! The Kellogg-Briand pact would have made your ears bleed! And, you'd have a Republican president to kick around!

It's always nice to get my hatred of democrats reconfirmed every now and then.

Your utter disreguard for honorable men and women has been echoed by every other dem I explain this too. You always have excuses for breaking the law as long as it's the laws that fuck over honorable people.

Thanks for proving that my decision to never ever vote (d) ever again, was the right one.

Breaking the law?!?! What law? Be specific!

You do know that discrimination is against the law.

clinton kicked out people for being over weight

that's discrimination and therefore is against the law

I look forward to your defence of law breaking by use of more twisted logic.

I have to take back what I said about all libs echoing. 1 liberal and 1 liberal only admitted what was done to the military was wrong. Out the the thousands I have told this too, there is 1 decent person in your ranks.

 

[Two Thumbs]

meanwhile the aclu whose sole purpose is to defend the constitution is vilified by the tea party.

Have any of them even read the constitution?

that's a lie.

The aclu only enforces the constitution when it wants to.

oh no thats horrible! You're right they should be tar and feathered!!

I'm glad to see you agree.

But I think disbanding them is punishment enough.

 

[Nosmo King]

It's always nice to get my hatred of democrats reconfirmed every now and then.

Your utter disreguard for honorable men and women has been echoed by every other dem I explain this too. You always have excuses for breaking the law as long as it's the laws that fuck over honorable people.

Thanks for proving that my decision to never ever vote (d) ever again, was the right one.

Breaking the law?!?! What law? Be specific!

You do know that discrimination is against the law.

clinton kicked out people for being over weight

that's discrimination and therefore is against the law

I look forward to your defence of law breaking by use of more twisted logic.

I have to take back what I said about all libs echoing. 1 liberal and 1 liberal only admitted what was done to the military was wrong. Out the the thousands I have told this too, there is 1 decent person in your ranks.

We are talking about soldiers and sailors here, right? I mean, the topic isn't receptionists at the Department of Energy, but our fighting forces, right?

It's OK to have fit soldiers and sailors. In fact, I would think that it's preferred to be physically fit to go into battle.

And you are such an advocate for fat, slovenly soldiers. What do you think about homosexual soldiers?

Were you discharged for being a chubby soldier? If you can't perform physical tasks, should you be paid as a soldier?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Breaking the law?!?! What law? Be specific!

You do know that discrimination is against the law.

clinton kicked out people for being over weight

that's discrimination and therefore is against the law

I look forward to your defence of law breaking by use of more twisted logic.

I have to take back what I said about all libs echoing. 1 liberal and 1 liberal only admitted what was done to the military was wrong. Out the the thousands I have told this too, there is 1 decent person in your ranks.

We are talking about soldiers and sailors here, right? I mean, the topic isn't receptionists at the Department of Energy, but our fighting forces, right?

It's OK to have fit soldiers and sailors. In fact, I would think that it's preferred to be physically fit to go into battle.

And you are such an advocate for fat, slovenly soldiers. What do you think about homosexual soldiers?

Were you discharged for being a chubby soldier? If you can't perform physical tasks, should you be paid as a soldier?

I'm happy to see that you are in fact perfectly fine with discrimination. You do not surprise me at all.

Like I said, I have only found 1 liberal decent enough to admit what was done was not just illegal, but immoral.

not that you care, but I was a sailor, a sub sailor, with 9 1/2 of honorable service. I more that passed my PT test everytime, but since I was 1/2% over the limit my career was ended illegally, the money that I was due, do to my discharge being a breach of contract, was stolen from me.

Be proud liberal, your inability to see right from wrong is a common trait among your filth.

 

[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.

 

[daveman]

Just because you choose to believe something you have been spoon fed, it doesn't make it true. LOL Your "key difference" is nothing but a delusion that the right uses to justify their hypocrisy.

Furthermore, the right loves judges who legislate from the bench as long as the decision agrees with their opinions.

Speaking of spoon-fed delusion...

No kidding..... drsmith lives in alternate reality where up is down and left is right.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.

-- Ronald Reagan

 

[daveman]

Yeah I am right..and in the exact way I think.

And saying "Modern Conservatives" are "Classical Liberals" is laughable.

They would be better compared to Tories or Whigs.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Hogwash. You guys put up vague generalities about freedom and liberty..and when asked for specifics on exactly what that means..you point to freedom and liberty for corporate entities. Replace those corporate entities with nobility and yes..you guys are closer to the Tories and Whigs.

I repeat: No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.

Have you ever considered thinking for yourself?

 

[Moon]

When did it become a bad thing to work to change the Constitution using the means explicitly provided for in the Constitution itself?

 

[jillian]

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

They are a bit selective.

They love 'limited government' until it comes to women's bodies...

hate the separation of church and state...

hate the commerce clause

hate the general welfare clause

hate the supremacy clause.

but they just adore the second amendment.

 

[jillian]

When did it become a bad thing to work to change the Constitution using the means explicitly provided for in the Constitution itself?

so what about the constitution is it that you want to 'protect and defend'?