We must restore constitutional government

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
134,835
Reaction score
26,731
Points
2,180
“We must restore constitutional government”. Such is the ignorant nonsense of the TPM and others on the ridiculous right.

The United States is currently functioning under Constitutional government, nothing needs to be ‘restored’ – the notion is moronic, baseless idiocy.
Once again we see the ignorance of CCJ - the U.S. is not functioning under constitutional government as the Supreme Court just altered law. For those that are ignorant like CCJ: the Supreme Court is part of the Judicial branch and cannot create or alter law. Only the Legislative branch can do that.
Hardly does complying with the Constitution on the basis of equality, liberty and fraternity allow the discrimination of a demographic group of humans you don't like.
It actually does, moron.
 

JWBooth

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
10,547
Reaction score
2,708
Points
255
Location
Texas Republic
“We must restore constitutional government”. Such is the ignorant nonsense of the TPM and others on the ridiculous right.

The United States is currently functioning under Constitutional government, nothing needs to be ‘restored’ – the notion is moronic, baseless idiocy.
Once again we see the ignorance of CCJ - the U.S. is not functioning under constitutional government as the Supreme Court just altered law. For those that are ignorant like CCJ: the Supreme Court is part of the Judicial branch and cannot create or alter law. Only the Legislative branch can do that.
Hardly does complying with the Constitution on the basis of equality, liberty and fraternity allow the discrimination of a demographic group of humans you don't like.
The jacobins are passe’
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,864
Reaction score
7,611
Points
1,860
Location
United States
“We must restore constitutional government”. Such is the ignorant nonsense of the TPM and others on the ridiculous right.

The United States is currently functioning under Constitutional government, nothing needs to be ‘restored’ – the notion is moronic, baseless idiocy.
Once again we see the ignorance of CCJ - the U.S. is not functioning under constitutional government. Hint: the 1st Amendment does not say "except for times of pandemic". The ignorance of CCJ and his ilk is a genuine threat to the United States.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,864
Reaction score
7,611
Points
1,860
Location
United States
The "America Experiment" was lost decades and decades ago. Along with the US Constitution. The only question that remains at this point is, can it be restored? I would almost guarantee that it cannot be, but I hold out hope anyway.
 
Last edited:

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,568
Reaction score
1,543
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
The "America Experiment" was lost decades and decades ago. Along with the US Constitution. The only question that remains at this point is, can it be restored? I would almost guarantee that it cannot be, but I hold out hope anyway.
I think the country lost all constitutional balance around the turn of the century, when bankers, war mongers, imperialists, and colonialists took over.
The military was supposed to rely on state maintained militia, and the federal government went to a mercenary standing army instead. The National Guard is not what the founders wanted either. And the creation of a federal income tax essentially destroyed the states. With control over all the money, the federal government became all powerful. With a powerful mercenary force, and all the money to pay them, you ensure feudalism.
 

Zorro!

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
9,875
Reaction score
3,079
Points
335
“We must restore constitutional government”

Such is the ignorant nonsense of the TPM and others on the ridiculous right.

The United States is currently functioning under Constitutional government, nothing needs to be ‘restored’ – the notion is moronic, baseless idiocy.

The Federal government is functioning as intended by the Founding Generation: a Constitutional Republic whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

A Federal government afforded by the Constitution powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

A Federal government whose laws are supreme, where the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of Judicial Review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution, and where rulings by the Supreme Court become the law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, who have no ‘right’ to ‘nullify’ or ‘ignore’ Federal law or the rulings of Federal courts (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

That conservatives, libertarians, and members of the TPM disagree with Supreme Court decisions because those rulings might conflict with errant, wrongheaded conservative dogma is of no consequence and devoid of merit.
Sure. Illegal FISA warrants on political opponents, transition team and even an ADMINISTRATION, yet, no criminal charges of significance. That's not rule BY THE PEOPLE, that's rule by an out of control unaccountable central government.

But, at least Trump can slam the Corrupt Lawless Slaver China, one more time.

GOOD: Scoop: Trump plans last-minute China crackdown.

1605490620566.png


President Trump will enact a series of hardline policies during his final 10 weeks to cement his legacy on China, senior administration officials with direct knowledge of the plans tells Axios.

Why it matters: He'll try to make it politically untenable for the Biden administration to change course as China acts aggressively from India to Hong Kong to Taiwan, and the pandemic triggers a second global wave of shutdowns.
  • Watch for National Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe to publicly describe in granular detail intelligence about China's nefarious actions inside the U.S.
Details: Trump officials plan to sanction or restrict trade with more Chinese companies, government entities and officials for alleged complicity in human rights violations in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, or threatening U.S. national security.
  • The administration also will crack down on China for its labor practices beyond Xinjiang forced labor camps.
  • But don't expect big new moves on Taiwan or more closures of Chinese consulates in the U.S., officials say.
National Security Council spokesperson John Ullyot told Axios, "Unless Beijing reverses course and becomes a responsible player on the global stage, future U.S. presidents will find it politically suicidal to reverse President Trump’s historic actions."

Behind the scenes: Senior administration officials are discussing expanding a Defense Department list of Chinese companies deemed to have ties to the Chinese military.
  • An executive order issued last week barred U.S. investment in 31 such companies, and any additions would likely face a similar restriction.
  • Officials plan to target China's growing use of forced labor in the highly competitive fishing industry. Coerced and unpaid labor isn't just a human rights concern — it can also give Chinese fisheries an advantage over rivals in an industry with geopolitical significance.
  • Trump officials have been looking to move more hawkish China experts into senior roles across the government, another senior official added.
What they're saying: "Director Ratcliffe will continue playing a leading role, in coordination with other national security principals, in delivering a necessary mindset shift from the Cold War and post-9/11 counterterrorism eras to a focus on great power competition with an adversarial China," DNI senior adviser Cliff Sims tells Axios.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,568
Reaction score
1,543
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
...Arguably not since 1803, but certainly not since the 1860s. All states need to reassert their authority under the 10th Amendment.
"Hang onto your Confederate money, boys... the South's gonna rise again!" :auiqs.jpg:
States being more sovereign, as it used to be, is likely much better.
For example, imagine if the federal government enforced uniform gun laws, health care, traffic laws, etc.?
Not only would it be inappropriate for Alaska and NYC to have the same laws and regulations, but those charged would have to try to fight federal prosecutors in federal courts. An expensive and totally inappropriate infringement on rights.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,568
Reaction score
1,543
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Each and ever item listed is 100% unconstitutional...
While I am an extreme leftist, I agree the federal government does not have legal jurisdiction over anything like health care.

However, that is why the Hyde Amendment is illegal.
States are who should be administering all health care funding regardless if it is coming from the federal government or not, so then the federal government should get no say in if the funding is used for abortions or not. It has to be totally up to each state.
However, it is still not clear states can dictate individual rights and withhold abortion funding to individuals.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,568
Reaction score
1,543
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,864
Reaction score
7,611
Points
1,860
Location
United States
While I am an extreme leftist, I agree the federal government does not have legal jurisdiction over anything like health care.
Agreed
However, that is why the Hyde Amendment is illegal...the federal government should get no say in if the funding is used for abortions or not.
Agreed...with one caveat. If the federal government is going to unconstitutionally pass out my tax payer dollars, then they should unconstitutionally control how it is spent at the state level.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,864
Reaction score
7,611
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Sure, we should limit federal involvement in local affairs.
Agree completely.
But that does not mean we should let states dictate personal affairs, like abortion.
While I agree that the state has no business in personal affairs, abortion does not qualify for that status. Taking a human life is not a “personal affair”. If you can’t take a 40 year olds life, you sure as shit shouldn’t be able to take a baby’s life.
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
4,636
Reaction score
5,485
Points
1,903
The people tasked with enforcing our laws are the same people violating our most important laws....

Beyond the controversial ways stingray technology works, the secrecy and deception law enforcement agencies use to cloak their use of the devices is also troubling. Law enforcement agencies around the country have routinely used the devices without obtaining a warrant from judges. In cases where they did obtain a warrant, they often deceived judges about the nature of the technology they planned to use. Instead of telling judges that they intended to use a stingray or cell site simulator, they have often mischaracterized the technology, describing it as a pen register device instead.

Hacker Lexicon: Stingrays, the Spy Tool the Government Tried, and Failed, to Hide
HOW? is the question......

our dammed ruling class is corrupt and out of control.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,568
Reaction score
1,543
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
While I am an extreme leftist, I agree the federal government does not have legal jurisdiction over anything like health care.
Agreed
However, that is why the Hyde Amendment is illegal...the federal government should get no say in if the funding is used for abortions or not.
Agreed...with one caveat. If the federal government is going to unconstitutionally pass out my tax payer dollars, then they should unconstitutionally control how it is spent at the state level.
Why? You have more influence over your own state government than you do over the federal government?
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,568
Reaction score
1,543
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Sure, we should limit federal involvement in local affairs.
Agree completely.
But that does not mean we should let states dictate personal affairs, like abortion.
While I agree that the state has no business in personal affairs, abortion does not qualify for that status. Taking a human life is not a “personal affair”. If you can’t take a 40 year olds life, you sure as shit shouldn’t be able to take a baby’s life.
A fetus or a baby is a subjective distinction, and the women gets to make that choice because she is the one who has to risk her life if she wants to deliver it.
And clearly a 40 years old can have its life taken without it being a crime, if the person is brain dead or otherwise hopeless.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top