We must restore constitutional government

[P@triot]

We are not under the organic constitution that was passed in 1787 and anyone that says differently is a fucking moron. Act of 1871, anyone? The corporate charter that was passed that made us "U.S citizens" instead of sovereigns is what the original constitution was against. Do your fucking homework, leftards. The OP is "dead on" and 100 percent correct, I have posted about this before and loaded it with pertinent information and I am getting fucking tired of constantly repeating myself. Prove that I am wrong or STFU....seriously.

Now, now....be easy on the left....to them the Constitution is a "living, breathing document".

But these people are so fucking stupid, Randall....I mean utterly fucking STUPID and clueless. I should be charging these idiots for the stuff I have spent thousands of hours researching...it's a fucking gift I am trying to bestow....but they are like these robots that are programmed to repeat the same lame shit...un-fucking real.

In all fairness D.S., liberals aren't so much stupid as they are evil. I mean, they are stupid (clearly anyone who desires Nazi-like fascism is an idiot), but all of this nonsense is not because they don't understand. It's because they are lying animals with an agenda. They can't get the votes they need to amend the Constitution so they look for new and evil ways to get around it.

 

[RandallFlagg]

For the uniformed..... "constitutional" is whatever the supreme court says it is.

even when it's as stupid a decision as citizen's united or heller.

but i love when people who get their "constitutional" education from the rightwing blogosphere pretend they know what "constitutional" is.

Oh my dear, dear Jillian. As usual, you could not be more wrong. I think we both know I've forgotten more about the U.S. Constitution than any 'blogosphere" and about 99.999% of the attorney's walking around out there. Though if it eases your psyche to pretend otherwise, I'll go with it dear friend.

The Constitution says what it says. Pretending that person A reads one thing while person B reads another and that requires governing body C (i.e. the Supreme Court) to decide is just typical liberal desperation. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is as straight forward, simple, and clear as it gets. Every single person on this earth knows exactly what it means. Sadly, the irrational liberals hatred of liberty and rights causes them to pretend like there is some confusion around so that they can attempt to circumvent the Constitution. Liberals hate that they can't impose their will on others and since they can't get the votes to legally amend the Constitution, their approach is to feign misunderstanding, stack the Supreme Court with political activists posing as "justices" and hope that 9 unelected officials serve as an oligarchy to override the will of the people.

No where in the U.S. Constitution does it grant any governing body the power to decide what the Constitution itself means. If there were some ambiguity around the Constitution which required as much, then rather than grant power over it, the framers would have simply rewritten it to clarify what ever was ambiguous. How long have you bee an attorney Jillian? Would you ever - under any circumstances - intentionally leave a section of a legal document ambiguous with the realization that the courts could later decide what it meant? Be honest for once. Of course not. And that alone proves what an asinine argument you're attempting to make.

Indeed. The liberal mindset (sort of got going in the 60s) was to "work around" the American people. I distinctly recall my time in Political Science class the bearded, sit on his desk cross-legged "professor" that repeatedly told us that the "only way to affect change in the country was to stack the courts with liberal, like-minded judges". Congratulations! They have succeeded in doing just that. You see, they understand that patriotic Americans would NEVER sit still for a "re-do" of the Constitution or hell, even the Declaration of Independence - let alone the Bill of Rights. So, as Karl Marx said - "Go around the laws of the land and subvert from within". That's exactly what they have done both at the local and the Federal level. And, by doing so, have made the Congress, for the most part, irrelevant. I give you the SCOTUS and their ruling (unconstitutional) on gay marriage.

The next step? The Second Amendment. I promise you, let Hillary OR Bernie win. You can kiss your Second Amendment rights goodbye, and confiscation will follow shortly thereafter. Welcome to Tyranny.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You all can venerate the Founders.

We are not going back to 1789.

 

[jillian]

That the ignorance and stupidity exhibited by conservatives in the thread has not come to pass, nor will it ever come to pass, is proof that we currently have Constitutional governance.

More BS, we have a corporate oligarchy masquerading as a Constitutional government. Stop being dishonest...

The money has always dominated our governments.

It always will.

But it can be limited at times by progressive populist revolutions, like now, that are going on in both parties.

And that's why the fed gov is supposed to be limited to its enumerated powers. Power corrupts...the founders knew that, modern day libs evidently don't.

So they were kidding when. They said the congress should pass laws for the general welfare and commerce?

I understand that you want certain things. But the things you want aren't actually reflected in our laws.

Thanks anyway

 

[P@triot]

So they were kidding when. They said the congress should pass laws for the general welfare and commerce?

I understand that you want certain things. But the things you want aren't actually reflected in our laws. Thanks anyway

I've explained this many times already Jillian. The founders were very clear that the power belonged to the states. For obvious reasons, the states delegated 18 specific powers to the federal government (18 items that made more sense for the federal government to control so the states would be unified in them - such as currency). Now within those 18 enumerated powers which they are explicitly restricted, the states used the language "general welfare" so that they wouldn't have to create a 4,000 page document outlining each and every item that would fall under those 18 enumerated powers.

Here is Thomas Jefferson himself on two separate occasions explaining as much:

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

This is extremely clear Jillian. Even for a liberal. And you are an attorney - so don't pretend like you can't understand the language here. Game over.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am very clear that the Founders' vision has been adopted and changed by succeeding generations to meet their visions as needed.

That will continue, that will never change.

 

[jillian]

That the ignorance and stupidity exhibited by conservatives in the thread has not come to pass, nor will it ever come to pass, is proof that we currently have Constitutional governance.

More BS, we have a corporate oligarchy masquerading as a Constitutional government. Stop being dishonest...

The money has always dominated our governments.

It always will.

But it can be limited at times by progressive populist revolutions, like now, that are going on in both parties.

And that's why the fed gov is supposed to be limited to its enumerated powers. Power corrupts...the founders knew that, modern day libs evidently don't.

So they were kidding when. They said the congress should pass laws for the general welfare and commerce?

I understand that you want certain things. But the things you want aren't actually reflected in our laws. Thanks anyway

I've explained this many times already Jillian. The founders were very clear that the power belonged to the states. For obvious reasons, the states delegated 18 specific powers to the federal government (18 items that made more sense for the federal government to control so the states would be unified in them - such as currency). Now within those 18 enumerated powers which they are explicitly restricted, the states used the language "general welfare" so that they wouldn't have to create a 4,000 page document outlining each and every item that would fall under those 18 enumerated powers.

Here is Thomas Jefferson himself on two separate occasions explaining as much:

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

This is extremely clear Jillian. Even for a liberal. And you are an attorney - so don't pretend like you can't understand the language here. Game over.

*you've* explained it?


My con law professors and 200 plus years of Supreme Court justices who actually know what they're talking about explained it better.

The fact that the rabid right pretends that the constitution says what they want it to isn't my problem

And here's a hint. Jefferson was one politician and his musings aren't law. And other politicians conflict with him

But thanks for playing

 

[Centinel]

For the uniformed..... "constitutional" is whatever the supreme court says it is.

So when the convention delegates wrote the constitution, and they sent it to the states for ratification, the supreme court did not yet exist. How did the states know what they were ratifying?

 

[Centinel]

You all can venerate the Founders.

We are not going back to 1789.

Obeying a law does not initiate time travel to the time when that law was written.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You all can venerate the Founders.

We are not going back to 1789.

Obeying a law does not initiate time travel to the time when that law was written.

Now you are confusing yourself.

 

[P@triot]

My con law professors and 200 plus years of Supreme Court justices who actually know what they're talking about explained it better.

The fact that the rabid right pretends that the constitution says what they want it to isn't my problem

And here's a hint. Jefferson was one politician and his musings aren't law. And other politicians conflict with him

HaHa! So you're radical libtard "professors" with an agenda know better than Thomas Jefferson, who was the architect behind nearly our entire system of government and our entire system of law? Riiiiiiight. Keep trying to tell yourself that sweetie.

You are by far the most fascinating study on USMB. Unlike most of the high school dropout libtards on here, you can actually understand the language. And I've noticed how frustrated you get when hit with the facts. When you have to resort to "Thomas Jefferson doesn't matter - my professor at Libtard U. taught me something else" you know you've lost the debate. Your "professors" didn't found this country my dear. And they sure as hell didn't write the Declaration of Independence nor where their writings, concepts, and previous legislation used as the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. Sorry J - but your professors are irrelevant and clearly unqualified (either they are ignorant or they had an agenda - but either way that disqualifies them). The right accepts the U.S. Constitution accepts the document how the framers intended - exactly as it is written. Just as any rational human would.

By the way - why the refusal to answer the question? Because you realize it u equivocally proves you and your wing-tard profs wrong?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jillian, the professors, and SCOTUS know better than you, Rottweiler, yes, every time.

 

[P@triot]

My con law professors and 200 plus years of Supreme Court justices who actually know what they're talking about explained it better.

Pssst...Jillian. If all of your "con-law" professors combined were handed the answers in advance plus IBM's "Watson" AI machine, I would still run circles around them on the U.S. Constitution (and it wouldn't even be close). It's so cut and dry that no amount of "well libtard agenda re-interpretation says X" would help them.

 

[Centinel]

You all can venerate the Founders.

We are not going back to 1789.

Obeying a law does not initiate time travel to the time when that law was written.

Now you are confusing yourself.

You seem to be saying that obeying a law written in the past means one is going back in time. Is this your position?

 

[P@triot]

"The money has always dominated our governments."

True – and it likely always will.

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the wrongheaded myth of ‘restoring’ Constitutional government.

So I'll ask again (and I'm sure you'll ignore again I'm sure) - in your very limited mind, NSA warantless wire tapping is "Constitutional"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You all can venerate the Founders.

We are not going back to 1789.

Obeying a law does not initiate time travel to the time when that law was written.

Now you are confusing yourself.

You seem to be saying that obeying a law written in the past means one is going back in time. Is this your position?

Do you realize your question makes no sense?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The money has always dominated our governments."

True – and it likely always will.

Having nothing whatsoever to do with the wrongheaded myth of ‘restoring’ Constitutional government.

So I'll ask again (and I'm sure you'll ignore again I'm sure) - in your very limited mind, NSA warantless wire tapping is "Constitutional"?

Your opinion is only your opinion. Mine is that John Adams would have been thrilled with it if available in his day and age.

 

[pwjohn]

They lost because of weak candidates and media control over the opinions of educationally-disabled Americans.

No. They lost because the educated Americans rejected the far right positions of the GOP.

And yet you claim to be Republican?

Any confusion as to sex assignment?

You are confused that we have a mainstream GOP that despises the far right wacks?

What you have are Republicans who are for all philosophical purposes Democrats.

I have no dog in the hunt, being neither. You are easy to spot.

You couldn't possibly be more full of shit.

 

[Centinel]

We are not going back to 1789.

Absent time travel, how could we possibly go back to 1789?

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, so how do you go about doing this? It can only be by electing people with whom you agree. How do you plan on convincing enough of the electorate to vote with you?

Anyone?

Bueller?
.