Why Do Liberals Deny America's Christian Founding and Heritage?

[JakeStarkey]

Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.

Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...

As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......

And its defense of the 14th Amendment back then and the Civil Rights legislation fifty years later and ACA and marriage equality and fair housing recently and recently. I trust our SCOTUS and federal legislature far more than the state legislatures.

The Ten Commandments do not recognize minority rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.

Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...

As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......

When you come up with a better idea than a Supreme Court, you might have a point.

Mark Levin thinks they should have term limits...so they can do less damage....get rid of them before they turn senile......I could go with that....and a 2/3 over ride in say, the House of Representatives...for any stupid, anti Constitutional ruling they make...I could go with that too.....why should 9 lawyers made far reaching decisions for 320 million people....often resting on one vote...

So you think the Founders made some mistakes.

 

[2aguy]

Christianity is not by itself a plan for democratic government.

Who the fuck said that it was.....? We were founded on Christian principals but have a secular government, influenced by those principals with religious freedom that used to be protected and cherished....

What Christian principles were we founded on that aren't also Jewish principles that came first?

Islam has set of commandments that mirror almost exactly the Ten Commandments of the Bible.

The problem....they only apply to muslims...that is the one thing the "experts" fail to point out when they bring that up......Sharia only applies to muslims...all others are either Dhimmi.....under muslim control.....or Infidel.....who are to be killed when found............and muslims are commanded by Islam to spread Sharia by any means necessary and are exempted from anything they need to be exempted from to make this happen......they are not supposed to lie to other muslims...but can if it furthers the cause of spreading sharia.....

People need to learn about islam......or you won't understand what we are facing....

 

[2aguy]

Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.

Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...

As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......

And its defense of the 14th Amendment back then and the Civil Rights legislation fifty years later and ACA and marriage equality and fair housing recently and recently. I trust our SCOTUS and federal legislature far more than the state legislatures.

The Ten Commandments do not recognize minority rights.

They are all about rights......the 10 commandments are about minority rights how do you not get that........

 

[2aguy]

Christianity is not by itself a plan for democratic government.

Who the fuck said that it was.....? We were founded on Christian principals but have a secular government, influenced by those principals with religious freedom that used to be protected and cherished....

What Christian principles were we founded on that aren't also Jewish principles that came first?

That is why it is said we are a Judeo/Christian country...founded on those Principals......but the founders, except for maybe one (?) were Christians, not Jews....and the "Deists" were also following Christian principals...just read how they described their beliefs sometime....

 

[2aguy]

The founders of our country were Christian. They were also white, European and aristocrats

Does that make us an aristocratic nation?

No, because they put safeguards in to keep us from becoming Europe....sadly, the democrats keep wanting to get rid of those safeguards because they love the top down government model of Europe.

Actually, they put safeguards in to prevent us from becoming a Christian nation

You are so wrong.......they put safeguards in to protect the free expression of religions....

 

[2aguy]

We should replace the Bill of Rights with the Ten Commandments.

We should adhere to both.......

Tell me how the 10 commandments are so bad?

 

[2aguy]

Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.

Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...

As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, you're making references to various rulings that are completely unrelated to each other.

You're also exhibiting your comprehensive ignorance of the Supreme Court, the role of the Court in the Federal system, the doctrine of judicial review, and Constitutional case law itself – this is an inane and ridiculous post.

Well....allow me to retort....fuck you asshole....those were all Supreme Court decisions and had the force of Constitutional Law because the Supreme Court at the time said they were Constitutional..........

Deny that moron.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Ten Commandments do not recognize minority rights.

They are all about rights......the 10 commandments are about minority rights how do you not get that........

Explain that, please.

 

[2aguy]

Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.

Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...

As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, you're making references to various rulings that are completely unrelated to each other.

You're also exhibiting your comprehensive ignorance of the Supreme Court, the role of the Court in the Federal system, the doctrine of judicial review, and Constitutional case law itself – this is an inane and ridiculous post.

Okay asshole...deny that this was at one time Constitutional law as declared by the Supreme Court....

A case Mark Levin pointed out.....

Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregationin public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal".[1] The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan.

 

[2aguy]

The Ten Commandments do not recognize minority rights.

They are all about rights......the 10 commandments are about minority rights how do you not get that........

Explain that, please.

The wealthiest are governed by the 10 the same as the poor, never before did you have that.......the wealthy could kill and not be held accountable.....the king, queen, or whoever could not murder any more than a peasant could.....same with theft, or the other commandments....

How does that not protect the rights of minorities.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are a secular government, always have been. All of the Founders had a form of religious faith, yes. The possible one atheist had secular ethics, yes.

They were very careful to make sure the charter document of government was secular. Those who depend on Levin or Hannitty or Beck for their understanding of the Constitution are doomed to disappointment.

 

[2aguy]

Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.

Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...

As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, you're making references to various rulings that are completely unrelated to each other.

You're also exhibiting your comprehensive ignorance of the Supreme Court, the role of the Court in the Federal system, the doctrine of judicial review, and Constitutional case law itself – this is an inane and ridiculous post.

Okay asshole....tell me this wasn't Constitutional because of the Supreme Court.......another case cited by Mark Levin...

Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944),[1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship.

In a 6–3 decision, the Court sided with the government,[2] ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional. Six of eight Roosevelt appointees sided with Roosevelt.

Notice....democrats did this....

 

[2aguy]

Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.

Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...

As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, you're making references to various rulings that are completely unrelated to each other.

You're also exhibiting your comprehensive ignorance of the Supreme Court, the role of the Court in the Federal system, the doctrine of judicial review, and Constitutional case law itself – this is an inane and ridiculous post.

Okay asshole, tell me this is right........and it is Constitutional because the Supreme Court said so....right?


Another case cited by Mark Levin....

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by theSupreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an undeveloped empty lot.[2]

Taking property from one private citizen.....to transfer it to a private citizen favored by the local government for tax revenue............and that was deemed Constitutional...

they are just as corrupt and fallible as any other human......that is why we need an override of their stupid decisions.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Christianity is not by itself a plan for democratic government.

Who the fuck said that it was.....? We were founded on Christian principals but have a secular government, influenced by those principals with religious freedom that used to be protected and cherished....

What Christian principles were we founded on that aren't also Jewish principles that came first?

Islam has set of commandments that mirror almost exactly the Ten Commandments of the Bible.

The problem....they only apply to muslims...that is the one thing the "experts" fail to point out when they bring that up......Sharia only applies to muslims...all others are either Dhimmi.....under muslim control.....or Infidel.....who are to be killed when found............and muslims are commanded by Islam to spread Sharia by any means necessary and are exempted from anything they need to be exempted from to make this happen......they are not supposed to lie to other muslims...but can if it furthers the cause of spreading sharia.....

People need to learn about islam......or you won't understand what we are facing....

I wasn't aware that all Muslims in America are killing people. Shouldn't that have been on the news?

 

[JakeStarkey]

2aguy, none of your posts forward the OP.

We are a nation of Christians, generally, less so than 50 years ago.

We have never been, since 1787, a Christian nation.

And, no, the 10 Commandments do not protect minority rights. The Bill of Rights does.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.

Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...

As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, you're making references to various rulings that are completely unrelated to each other.

You're also exhibiting your comprehensive ignorance of the Supreme Court, the role of the Court in the Federal system, the doctrine of judicial review, and Constitutional case law itself – this is an inane and ridiculous post.

Okay asshole, tell me this is right........and it is Constitutional because the Supreme Court said so....right?


Another case cited by Mark Levin....

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by theSupreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an undeveloped empty lot.[2]

Taking property from one private citizen.....to transfer it to a private citizen favored by the local government for tax revenue............and that was deemed Constitutional...

they are just as corrupt and fallible as any other human......that is why we need an override of their stupid decisions.....

How else would be determined constitutional or unconstitutional?

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS is the override per the Constitution on stupid decisions by the legislatures and courts.

They get it right far more often than not.

 

[2aguy]

Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.

Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...

As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, you're making references to various rulings that are completely unrelated to each other.

You're also exhibiting your comprehensive ignorance of the Supreme Court, the role of the Court in the Federal system, the doctrine of judicial review, and Constitutional case law itself – this is an inane and ridiculous post.

Okay asshole, tell me this is right........and it is Constitutional because the Supreme Court said so....right?


Another case cited by Mark Levin....

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by theSupreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an undeveloped empty lot.[2]

Taking property from one private citizen.....to transfer it to a private citizen favored by the local government for tax revenue............and that was deemed Constitutional...

they are just as corrupt and fallible as any other human......that is why we need an override of their stupid decisions.....

How else would be determined constitutional or unconstitutional?

If the Supreme Court messes up...as they have done over the years in big...big ways.......then, as Mark Levin suggests, removing their life time tenure...term limits.....and as I have heard suggested, some sort of over ruling mechanism...I would favor a 2/3 vote in the House or Senate or both would overturn their decision........another check on the power of government......

 

[2aguy]

SCOTUS is the override per the Constitution on stupid decisions by the legislatures and courts.

They get it right far more often than not.

When they get it wrong they get it really wrong...just ask the Americans of Japanese descent or the blacks denied access or the property taken under Kelo.........