We must restore constitutional government

[P@triot]

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)

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

"The authority of those who teach is often an obstacle to those who want to learn." - Marcus Tulles Cicero

(Flawlessly sums up you and your "con law professors" - eh Jillian?)

 

[P@triot]

What a tragic indictment on the United States. Even Supreme Court Justices recognize just how extreme the abuse and usurpation of the Constitution has become in this country. We must restore Constitutional government.

 

[P@triot]

This is completely unacceptable. To be very clear here - yes, this girl is an awful human being. Awful. But even awful human beings have a 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. She is not responsible for the death of this person. He didn't have to listen to her. Hell, he didn't even have to hear her. The technology exists today to block phone calls and/or texts from any number. He could have blocked this horrible girl. He chose not to. Just as he chose to take his own life. It's vintage liberal idiocy to blame everyone else for the choices of the individual and it has to stop.

Court: Teen who texted boyfriend urging suicide to stand trial

 

[P@triot]

Come on C_Clayton_Jones - tell us again how we are "operating under Constitutional government". It always makes me laugh when you say stupid stuff.

Hint: only the legislative branch can make laws, alter laws, or abolish laws. And Congress did not insert an "intent" statute into Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18). The F.B.I. and their director just inserted that statute into the law spontaneously and on their own. Since you are completely unaware of your own government or how it operates - the F.B.I. is a part of the executive branch (which has no authority to create, alter, or abolish law) while it is Congress that is the legislative branch. We are so far from actual constitutional government that you can't even comprehend what it looks like CCJ (it also doesn't help that you've refused to actually read the U.S. Constitution).

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook, by Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review

 

[P@triot]

Come CCJ....tell us again how we are "operating under constitutional government".

How to Defend Your First Amendment Rights

 

[regent]

So when did we lose Consrtitutional government and what was the cause?

 

[P@triot]

So when did we lose Consrtitutional government and what was the cause?

Early 1900's. Liberalism.

 

[regent]

So when did we lose Consrtitutional government and what was the cause?

Early 1900's. Liberalism.

So what did liberals do in the early 1900's that caused the loss of Constitutional government?

 

[P@triot]

So when did we lose Consrtitutional government and what was the cause?

Early 1900's. Liberalism.

So what did liberals do in the early 1900's that caused the loss of Constitutional government?

They ignored the U.S. Constitution. They assumed powers they did not have. They implemented policy that violated the Constitution. Here is a prime example:

Woodrow Wilson pushed for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which established twelve regional reserve banks controlled by the Federal Reserve Board, a new federal agency whose members were appointed by the President. This new federal system could adjust interest rates and the nation's money supply. Because it was authorized to issue currency based on government securities and "commercial paper" (the loans made to businesses by banks), the amount of money in circulation would expand or contract with the business cycle.

Here's the thing - if Woodrow Wilson wanted the power for the federal government to establish banks, adjust interest rates, and alter the nation's money supply, then what he should have pushed for is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution granting the federal government the power over those items. Instead, liberals just pushed ahead with their own bizarre agenda - law be damned.

How about another example?

Woodrow Wilson sponsored the Espionage and Sedition Acts, prohibiting interference with the draft and outlawing criticism of the government, the armed forces, or the war effort. Violators were imprisoned or fined.

Gee...that's not unconstitutional or anything. I mean, it's not like my 1st Amendment rights of Free Speech allows me to criticize the government, the armed forces, or a war effort. And the funny thing is - liberals sure as hell didn't abide by their own "Espionage and Sedition Act" when Bush was in office and we were embattled in conflict in Iraq.

Is that enough for you or do you require more?

 

[regent]

So when did we lose Consrtitutional government and what was the cause?

Early 1900's. Liberalism.

So what did liberals do in the early 1900's that caused the loss of Constitutional government?

They ignored the U.S. Constitution. They assumed powers they did not have. They implemented policy that violated the Constitution. Here is a prime example:

Woodrow Wilson pushed for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which established twelve regional reserve banks controlled by the Federal Reserve Board, a new federal agency whose members were appointed by the President. This new federal system could adjust interest rates and the nation's money supply. Because it was authorized to issue currency based on government securities and "commercial paper" (the loans made to businesses by banks), the amount of money in circulation would expand or contract with the business cycle.

Here's the thing - if Woodrow Wilson wanted the power for the federal government to establish banks, adjust interest rates, and alter the nation's money supply, then what he should have pushed for is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution granting the federal government the power over those items. Instead, liberals just pushed ahead with their own bizarre agenda - law be damned.

How about another example?

Woodrow Wilson sponsored the Espionage and Sedition Acts, prohibiting interference with the draft and outlawing criticism of the government, the armed forces, or the war effort. Violators were imprisoned or fined.

Gee...that's not unconstitutional or anything. I mean, it's not like my 1st Amendment rights of Free Speech allows me to criticize the government, the armed forces, or a war effort. And the funny thing is - liberals sure as hell didn't abide by their own "Espionage and Sedition Act" when Bush was in office and we were embattled in conflict in Iraq.

Is that enough for you or do you require more?

You might go back even earlier to the Alien and Sedition Act and the question of free speech. Sedition was saying bad things about the president.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The RWnuts love to make proclamations like 'we need to restore constitutional government!'

but with only a bit of closer scrutiny you realize that what they are really saying is, 'constitutional government' has to be

1) how we conservatives define it, and

2) how we like it based on our partisan agenda.

In other words, the Right demands both that we play by the rules, and that the Right gets to make the rules.

 

[P@triot]

None of this would be an issue if we were operating under constitutional government...

‘Zombie programs’ waste money with no Congress oversight

 

[P@triot]

The RWnuts love to make proclamations like 'we need to restore constitutional government!'

but with only a bit of closer scrutiny you realize that what they are really saying is, 'constitutional government' has to be

1) how we conservatives define it, and

2) how we like it based on our partisan agenda.

In other words, the Right demands both that we play by the rules, and that the Right gets to make the rules.

Go ahead - dispute one claim I've made about the U.S. currently not operating under constitutional government. I dare you. Tell us that the NSA is not spying on the American people without a warrant or that it's ok for them to do so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The RWnuts love to make proclamations like 'we need to restore constitutional government!'

but with only a bit of closer scrutiny you realize that what they are really saying is, 'constitutional government' has to be

1) how we conservatives define it, and

2) how we like it based on our partisan agenda.

In other words, the Right demands both that we play by the rules, and that the Right gets to make the rules.

Go ahead - dispute one claim I've made about the U.S. currently not operating under constitutional government. I dare you. Tell us that the NSA is not spying on the American people without a warrant or that it's ok for them to do so.

Laws are constitutional by default. Only if they are challenged and struck down do they become unconstitutional.

 

[P@triot]

The RWnuts love to make proclamations like 'we need to restore constitutional government!' but with only a bit of closer scrutiny you realize that what they are really saying is, 'constitutional government' has to be

1) how we conservatives define it, and

2) how we like it based on our partisan agenda.

In other words, the Right demands both that we play by the rules, and that the Right gets to make the rules.

The problem with Dumbocrats like Carb here is that they are uneducated. They've never read the U.S. Constitution and they skipped civics in high school to smoke pot under the bleachers. As such, they believe two astoundingly ignorant things...

1. If Congress passes it, it must be "constitutional"
2. If the president does it, it must be "constitutional"

Stupidity so special, it could only come from an uneducated Dumbocrat.

 

[P@triot]

The RWnuts love to make proclamations like 'we need to restore constitutional government!'

but with only a bit of closer scrutiny you realize that what they are really saying is, 'constitutional government' has to be

1) how we conservatives define it, and

2) how we like it based on our partisan agenda.

In other words, the Right demands both that we play by the rules, and that the Right gets to make the rules.

Go ahead - dispute one claim I've made about the U.S. currently not operating under constitutional government. I dare you. Tell us that the NSA is not spying on the American people without a warrant or that it's ok for them to do so.

Laws are constitutional by default. Only if they are challenged and struck down do they become unconstitutional.

Bwahahahahaha!!! So if Congress passed a law tomorrow saying it's ok to hang n*ggers - it is "constitutional"? Holy Jesus are you the dumbest person in America.

 

[P@triot]

The RWnuts love to make proclamations like 'we need to restore constitutional government!'

but with only a bit of closer scrutiny you realize that what they are really saying is, 'constitutional government' has to be

1) how we conservatives define it, and

2) how we like it based on our partisan agenda.

In other words, the Right demands both that we play by the rules, and that the Right gets to make the rules.

Go ahead - dispute one claim I've made about the U.S. currently not operating under constitutional government. I dare you. Tell us that the NSA is not spying on the American people without a warrant or that it's ok for them to do so.

Laws are constitutional by default. Only if they are challenged and struck down do they become unconstitutional.

So to be clear - it is "constitutional" for the NSA to intercept every single phone call, text, email, and keystroke of every single American? I just want to make sure your stupidity is very clear so everyone can have a good laugh.

 

[P@triot]

Laws are constitutional by default. Only if they are challenged and struck down do they become unconstitutional.

NYcarbineer.....taking stupidity to unprecedented levels since March 10, 2009.

 

[regent]

Have the American people been required to obey laws in the past that were later found to be unconstitutional?

 

[P@triot]

Have the American people been required to obey laws in the past that were later found to be unconstitutional?

In some cases - like the NSA surveillance programs - the American people can't obey or disobey. It's just an unconstitutional nightmare forced on them against their will. And even if it is later shut down, the damage has been done.