What the TEA Parties Want...

[geauxtohell]

I think it has at times served well, and at other times been nothing more than an abomination of our government...

So do you take the good with the bad or toss the baby out with the bathwater?

and why?? Because the limitations and charges are not laid out in the constitution, which is what grants the federal government its power and boundaries..

Do you ever consider that the constitution was made specifically vague in recognition that it was impossible to articulate and cover every single facet of a nation as it grew?

and because we don't have those defined, the SC has acted like so many other politicians, and has expanded its power for its own gain

Which is inherent to any bureaucracy. I mean, the only other real solution is anarchy.

At any rate, I'd argue that M V. M took a SCOTUS that had a weak role in the country and gave it the power to be an equal branch of government, which is what the founders intended.

As for arms... it is indeed pretty simple.... there is nothing preventing states to define legal arms, as any and all powers not grated to the fed are grated to the states and/or the individuals... as for free speech, I am all for saying anything you want that does not infringe upon the rights of others, for one cannot exercise their rights at the expense of the rights of another

So a person could have, say, an M240B and you'd be fine with that? Do you think the average American wants that?

I won't argue your opinion, but my larger point is that there is plenty to argue about when it comes to the laws of the lands.

It's not "so easy a caveman can do it" after all.

 

[DiamondDave]

Dave, once you again, you lose. Read the Constitution, son, and then live by it.

I did and posted it for you WORD FOR WORD numerous times... and I have asked you to simply point out any supporting wording for your assumption... I have shwon you each time that there is no supporting wording for your assertion

You have had mega super uber ultra fail

 

[DiamondDave]

I think it has at times served well, and at other times been nothing more than an abomination of our government...

So do you take the good with the bad or toss the baby out with the bathwater?

and why?? Because the limitations and charges are not laid out in the constitution, which is what grants the federal government its power and boundaries..

Do you ever consider that the constitution was made specifically vague in recognition that it was impossible to articulate and cover every single facet of a nation as it grew?

and because we don't have those defined, the SC has acted like so many other politicians, and has expanded its power for its own gain

Which is inherent to any bureaucracy. I mean, the only other real solution is anarchy.

At any rate, I'd argue that M V. M took a SCOTUS that had a weak role in the country and gave it the power to be an equal branch of government, which is what the founders intended.

As for arms... it is indeed pretty simple.... there is nothing preventing states to define legal arms, as any and all powers not grated to the fed are grated to the states and/or the individuals... as for free speech, I am all for saying anything you want that does not infringe upon the rights of others, for one cannot exercise their rights at the expense of the rights of another

So a person could have, say, an M240B and you'd be fine with that? Do you think the average American wants that?

I won't argue your opinion, but my larger point is that there is plenty to argue about when it comes to the laws of the lands.

It's not "so easy a caveman can do it" after all.

You throw it out if it is against the rules set forth in the constitution... if indeed you WANT this power or path, simply amend the constitution

Did you ever consider the powers were SPECIFICALLY laid out in an attempt to prevent the government from turning into an all encompassing entity with more controls over day to day life than the citizenry or the states??

I would argue that M V. M was an illegal power grab.. and nothing less... as stated.. I would be for some sort of judicial review if the specific powers and limitations were laid out within the constitution and not at the whim of the court itself... there is a process for change with checks and balances, and it should not have been bypassed in the power grab


If Alaska or Maine or wherever wants to have that as their stipulation for an 'arm', just as they make state stipulations for carry ad conceal laws that are not inherently the same throughout the union, that is their business... the magic about having the state with that power is that if that power is solely held by the fed, the citizenry has no choice whether they agree of disagree (without losing citizenship or not residing within the US)

 

[geauxtohell]

I think it has at times served well, and at other times been nothing more than an abomination of our government...

So do you take the good with the bad or toss the baby out with the bathwater?



Do you ever consider that the constitution was made specifically vague in recognition that it was impossible to articulate and cover every single facet of a nation as it grew?



Which is inherent to any bureaucracy. I mean, the only other real solution is anarchy.

At any rate, I'd argue that M V. M took a SCOTUS that had a weak role in the country and gave it the power to be an equal branch of government, which is what the founders intended.

As for arms... it is indeed pretty simple.... there is nothing preventing states to define legal arms, as any and all powers not grated to the fed are grated to the states and/or the individuals... as for free speech, I am all for saying anything you want that does not infringe upon the rights of others, for one cannot exercise their rights at the expense of the rights of another

So a person could have, say, an M240B and you'd be fine with that? Do you think the average American wants that?

I won't argue your opinion, but my larger point is that there is plenty to argue about when it comes to the laws of the lands.

It's not "so easy a caveman can do it" after all.

You throw it out if it is against the rules set forth in the constitution... if indeed you WANT this power or path, simply amend the constitution

Did you ever consider the powers were SPECIFICALLY laid out in an attempt to prevent the government from turning into an all encompassing entity with more controls over day to day life than the citizenry or the states??

I would argue that M V. M was an illegal power grab.. and nothing less... as stated.. I would be for some sort of judicial review if the specific powers and limitations were laid out within the constitution and not at the whim of the court itself... there is a process for change with checks and balances, and it should not have been bypassed in the power grab


If Alaska or Maine or wherever wants to have that as their stipulation for an 'arm', just as they make state stipulations for carry ad conceal laws that are not inherently the same throughout the union, that is their business... the magic about having the state with that power is that if that power is solely held by the fed, the citizenry has no choice whether they agree of disagree (without losing citizenship or not residing within the US)

Due to the supremacy clause, you can't lay this at the state's feet. If we are intrepret the 2nd amendment as broadly as you want to, states could not make gun laws that serve to be more restrictive than what the 2nd Amendment calls for.

 

[JakeStarkey]

DiamondDave has not made a point other than post the Constitution.

Point One: DD does not speak for the Constitution.

Point Two: SCOTUS does speak for the Constitution.

Point Three: DD fails, again.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Hell, let's forget about the Constitution for a second.

All of this spending during a crisis violates the basic laws of economics, let alone the Constitution itself.

 

[Rinata]

Now all that stuff is racist and homophobic.

Better knock it off!!!

Yep, I know. And... I wrote it myself (despite the fact that I provided a link). Therefore, I speak on behalf of the TEA Parties (only I don't). And the left wonder why we don't take them seriously. I don't take them seriously because they are dumb.

No...we're dumb, and racist, and homophobic, just because we don't like Obama's screwed up abusive policies.

Oh, no. You have it all wrong. You're just dumb, racist, and homophobic. Period.

 

[DiamondDave]

DiamondDave has not made a point other than post the Constitution.

Point One: DD does not speak for the Constitution.

Point Two: SCOTUS does speak for the Constitution.

Point Three: DD fails, again.

Again.. I supported all of my claims with facts as written in the constitution itself... you have failed to support any of your assertions with even a single iota of fact or even a misguided reference to anything within the constitution itself

You are a complete disingenuous buffoon

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those are not facts, DD, that support your contention. Your contention is your assertion that the Constitution supports your assertion. Son, that does not make sense. Please do better. Post some evidence that the Constitution supports your assertion, then we can proceed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hell, let's forget about the Constitution for a second.

All of this spending during a crisis violates the basic laws of economics, let alone the Constitution itself.

Actually, even though I am a devout Constitutionalist and find it interesting (and distressing) how many on the Left seem intent on diminishing or redefining that document, I think we might be blurring the focus here by focusing on the Constitution so much.

The Tea Partiers focus on returning to the basics of the Constitution as the Founders intended it, but in my opinion, that is to restore the role of government and the individual liberties of the people.

And the impetus to focus on that was triggered initially by those horrendous TARP and stimulus packages plus numerous other pork laden spending bills all borrowed on the backs of the taxpayers, their children, great grandchildren, and subsequent generations. It's positively nuts and indefensible if you really get down to the crux of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then, foxfyre, a pox on both the houses of both parties, is what you are saying.

 

[Foxfyre]

No Jake, bless your heart. I am not referring to political parties at all. Have you looked up the definition for 'non sequitur' yet?

I am focusing on what it is that the Tea Partiers want and, in the case of my immediately preceding post, what triggered the initiatives in the first place.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are the queen of "it doesn't follow." What you are trying to do, so poorly, is a segue. Keep trying.

 

[geauxtohell]

The Tea Partiers focus on returning to the basics of the Constitution as the Founders intended it, but in my opinion, that is to restore the role of government and the individual liberties of the people.

Do you honestly believe that any two people in this country could agree on what the "founders intended"?

I'll pose the same challenge to you that I often pose to "strict constitutionalists": In regards to the second Amendment, define the term "arms".

Please don't paste some definition from a dictionary. How do you define it? What do you perceive the "founder's intent" to be, and how does that relate to what weapons the average citizen should be able to amass?