Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution

[Contumacious]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution

At the time the Constitution (1787) was adopted it was considered a CLASSICAL LIBERAL document. because the same as well at the Declaration of Independence recognized NATURAL RIGHTS.

Nowadays NEITHER the liberals (left wing fascists) nor the Conservatives (right wing fascists) recognize natural rights.

Both parties recognize GOVERNMENT SUPREMACY , individual nowadays are allow to exercise PRIVILEGES which are subject to governmental bureaucratic discretion.


Hence , my response is the CONSTITUTION AND CLASSICAL LIBERALISM.


.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans got women the right to vote.

Democrats used the filibuster against it.

Learn some history.

Learn the difference between conservatives and liberals. Those were CONSERVATIVES who fought against giving the women the vote.

The Progressives, led by Theodore Roosevelt at the time, were supporters of women's suffrage.

The Progressives you seek to demonize on a regular basis. Yes, those Progressives. Your enemies from our history.

Tap dance all you like.....Republicans forced Democrats to give women the vote.

In reality the vote was bipartisan on the 19th.

Wrong again.

In reality the Republicans fought the Democrat filibuster.


1. It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment - Women 8217 s History - HISTORY.com

2. The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because Republicans had retaken control of the House. Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

3. The Senate vote was approved only after a Democrat filibuster; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it….and 54% of the Democrats

You are so dishonest! The party of TR and the progressives is not the par;ty of today, nor was it progressive when its leadership lobbied against the Equal Rights Amendment.

Q. Why do you continue posting one of the Big Lies?

A. Because the Republican Party is no longer the Party of Lincoln, TR or IKE, and history isn't on her side [which is why she constantly works to revise it,].

I see the main error in your post...so let's get this straight:
I am never dishonest, and you are never intelligent.

Clear?


The Hegelian, German viewpoint of supremacy of the state was and is un-American.
Progressives/Liberals/Democrats subscribe to same.

You are simply stupid.

 

[BlindBoo]

"Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace."

Does that include the tradition of denying women the vote?

Republicans got women the right to vote.

Democrats used the filibuster against it.

Learn some history.

Learn the difference between conservatives and liberals. Those were CONSERVATIVES who fought against giving the women the vote.

The Progressives, led by Theodore Roosevelt at the time, were supporters of women's suffrage.

The Progressives you seek to demonize on a regular basis. Yes, those Progressives. Your enemies from our history.

Tap dance all you like.....Republicans forced Democrats to give women the vote.

In reality the vote was bipartisan on the 19th.

Wrong again.

In reality the Republicans fought the Democrat filibuster.


1. It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment - Women 8217 s History - HISTORY.com

2. The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because Republicans had retaken control of the House. Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

3. The Senate vote was approved only after a Democrat filibuster; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it….and 54% of the Democrats

Oh, I see the problem. Here let me help you with that.

Full Definition of BIPARTISAN
: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties <abipartisan commission>; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties <bipartisan support for the bill>

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution

At the time the Constitution (1787) was adopted it was considered a CLASSICAL LIBERAL document. because the same as well at the Declaration of Independence recognized NATURAL RIGHTS.

Nowadays NEITHER the liberals (left wing fascists) nor the Conservatives (right wing fascists) recognize natural rights.

Both parties recognize GOVERNMENT SUPREMACY , individual nowadays are allow to exercise PRIVILEGES which are subject to governmental bureaucratic discretion.


Hence , my response is the CONSTITUTION AND CLASSICAL LIBERALISM.


.

Classical liberals believe the government was a greater threat to personal liberty and wellbeing than the forces outside of government, such as business.

After the horrors of unfettered capitalism ravaged nations like the US and Great Britain, a new liberalism emerged that (rightly) recognized that the biggest threat to personal liberty and wellbeing were not the government, but instead the private sector, the corporations, the money interests, etc.

That's where the split occurred.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Learn the difference between conservatives and liberals. Those were CONSERVATIVES who fought against giving the women the vote.

The Progressives, led by Theodore Roosevelt at the time, were supporters of women's suffrage.

The Progressives you seek to demonize on a regular basis. Yes, those Progressives. Your enemies from our history.

Tap dance all you like.....Republicans forced Democrats to give women the vote.

In reality the vote was bipartisan on the 19th.

Wrong again.

In reality the Republicans fought the Democrat filibuster.


1. It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment - Women 8217 s History - HISTORY.com

2. The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because Republicans had retaken control of the House. Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

3. The Senate vote was approved only after a Democrat filibuster; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it….and 54% of the Democrats

You are so dishonest! The party of TR and the progressives is not the par;ty of today, nor was it progressive when its leadership lobbied against the Equal Rights Amendment.

Q. Why do you continue posting one of the Big Lies?

A. Because the Republican Party is no longer the Party of Lincoln, TR or IKE, and history isn't on her side [which is why she constantly works to revise it,].

I see the main error in your post...so let's get this straight:
I am never dishonest, and you are never intelligent.

Clear?


The Hegelian, German viewpoint of supremacy of the state was and is un-American.
Progressives/Liberals/Democrats subscribe to same.

You are simply stupid.

If your government can't protect you, no one can.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Founders formed a Government to protect our rights and wellbeing,

not a Corporation.

 

[Moonglow]

The Founders formed a Government to protect our rights and wellbeing,

not a Corporation.

And then the GOP changed all that...

 

[westwall]

1. Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2. Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. For Classical Liberals, known today as conservatives, there should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


3. The Founders, Classical Liberals, operated under the view that government is a necessary evil, simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, and incorporated principles based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

a. Classical liberalism, the optimistic doctrine that gave us liberty, democracy, progress, was a moral project. It held that human society could always better itself by encouraging the good and diminishing the bad. It rested, therefore, on a very clear understanding that there was a higher cause than self-realization: that there were such things as right and wrong and that the former should be preferred over the latter. But the belief that autonomous individuals had the right to make subjective judgment about what was right for them in pursuit of their unchallengeable entitlement to happiness destroyed that understanding. Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
“The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284





4. There are several incorrigible liars who insist that the Founders were of the same mentality as those we call 'liberals.'
Nothing could be further from the truth.
To see how this pertains to the title of the thread, "Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution," notice that those known as Liberals today, actually the group called Socialists until communist John Dewey had them steal the name 'Liberal,' work for the very opposite: collectivism, socialist economic dominance, and unlimited, overreaching government.


a. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


b. Dewey reveled in the thought that the war might force Americans to “give up much of our economic freedom…we shall have to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.” Taking liberties - LA Times

I submit that as it regards individual rights and responsibilities, true liberalism DOES follow the Constitution. In other words the reason why I support gay marriage, and a whole host of socially liberal ideas is because the Declaration of Independence, memorialized those ideals as the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. So long as I don't violate YOUR rights by my actions, you should likewise not be allowed to violate my rights.

 

[Contumacious]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution

At the time the Constitution (1787) was adopted it was considered a CLASSICAL LIBERAL document. because the same as well at the Declaration of Independence recognized NATURAL RIGHTS.

Nowadays NEITHER the liberals (left wing fascists) nor the Conservatives (right wing fascists) recognize natural rights.

Both parties recognize GOVERNMENT SUPREMACY , individual nowadays are allow to exercise PRIVILEGES which are subject to governmental bureaucratic discretion.


Hence , my response is the CONSTITUTION AND CLASSICAL LIBERALISM.


.

Classical liberals believe the government was a greater threat to personal liberty and wellbeing than the forces outside of government, such as business.

After the horrors of unfettered capitalism ravaged nations like the US and Great Britain, a new liberalism emerged that (rightly) recognized that the biggest threat to personal liberty and wellbeing were not the government, but instead the private sector, the corporations, the money interests, etc.

That's where the split occurred.

The "Horrors" of unfettered Capitalism is a bullshit concept created by parasites, fascists, socialists and government supremacists in order to manipulate the government into:

a) feeding you
2) clothing you
3) insuring you
4) providing free education up to , and including , community college
5) quenching your thirst
6) invading every country on the face of mother earth


After the FDR 1935 ' Coup d'Etat, the Constitution (1787) was abolished and the Welfare/Warfare Police State Constitution of 1935 was adopted.


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution

At the time the Constitution (1787) was adopted it was considered a CLASSICAL LIBERAL document. because the same as well at the Declaration of Independence recognized NATURAL RIGHTS.

Nowadays NEITHER the liberals (left wing fascists) nor the Conservatives (right wing fascists) recognize natural rights.

Both parties recognize GOVERNMENT SUPREMACY , individual nowadays are allow to exercise PRIVILEGES which are subject to governmental bureaucratic discretion.


Hence , my response is the CONSTITUTION AND CLASSICAL LIBERALISM.


.

Classical liberals believe the government was a greater threat to personal liberty and wellbeing than the forces outside of government, such as business.

After the horrors of unfettered capitalism ravaged nations like the US and Great Britain, a new liberalism emerged that (rightly) recognized that the biggest threat to personal liberty and wellbeing were not the government, but instead the private sector, the corporations, the money interests, etc.

That's where the split occurred.

The "Horrors" of unfettered Capitalism is a bullshit concept created by parasites, fascists, socialists and government supremacists in order to manipulate the government into:

a) feeding you
2) clothing you
3) insuring you
4) providing free education up to , and including , community college
5) quenching your thirst
6) invading every country on the face of mother earth


After the FDR 1935 ' Coup d'Etat, the Constitution (1787) was abolished and the Welfare/Warfare Police State Constitution of 1935 was adopted.


.

If you deny the horrors of capitalism then you simply don't know history.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution

At the time the Constitution (1787) was adopted it was considered a CLASSICAL LIBERAL document. because the same as well at the Declaration of Independence recognized NATURAL RIGHTS.

Nowadays NEITHER the liberals (left wing fascists) nor the Conservatives (right wing fascists) recognize natural rights.

Both parties recognize GOVERNMENT SUPREMACY , individual nowadays are allow to exercise PRIVILEGES which are subject to governmental bureaucratic discretion.


Hence , my response is the CONSTITUTION AND CLASSICAL LIBERALISM.


.

Classical liberals believe the government was a greater threat to personal liberty and wellbeing than the forces outside of government, such as business.

After the horrors of unfettered capitalism ravaged nations like the US and Great Britain, a new liberalism emerged that (rightly) recognized that the biggest threat to personal liberty and wellbeing were not the government, but instead the private sector, the corporations, the money interests, etc.

That's where the split occurred.

The "Horrors" of unfettered Capitalism is a bullshit concept...

Unfortunately for you it's not BS, it's world history. It's also why no nation on the earth has unregulated capitalism, not a one.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution

At the time the Constitution (1787) was adopted it was considered a CLASSICAL LIBERAL document. because the same as well at the Declaration of Independence recognized NATURAL RIGHTS.

Nowadays NEITHER the liberals (left wing fascists) nor the Conservatives (right wing fascists) recognize natural rights.

Both parties recognize GOVERNMENT SUPREMACY , individual nowadays are allow to exercise PRIVILEGES which are subject to governmental bureaucratic discretion.


Hence , my response is the CONSTITUTION AND CLASSICAL LIBERALISM.


.

Classical liberals believe the government was a greater threat to personal liberty and wellbeing than the forces outside of government, such as business.

After the horrors of unfettered capitalism ravaged nations like the US and Great Britain, a new liberalism emerged that (rightly) recognized that the biggest threat to personal liberty and wellbeing were not the government, but instead the private sector, the corporations, the money interests, etc.

That's where the split occurred.

The "Horrors" of unfettered Capitalism is a bullshit concept created by parasites, fascists, socialists and government supremacists in order to manipulate the government into:

a) feeding you
2) clothing you
3) insuring you
4) providing free education up to , and including , community college
5) quenching your thirst
6) invading every country on the face of mother earth


After the FDR 1935 ' Coup d'Etat, the Constitution (1787) was abolished and the Welfare/Warfare Police State Constitution of 1935 was adopted.


.

If you deny the horrors of capitalism then you simply don't know history.

Well said. Oh right, I just said that as well.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution


We made that choice long ago, in 1789, when we ratified the Constitution. A document that outlawed the socialism called "modern liberalism".

Liberals have been trying to evade, misinterpret, and otherwise violate that document ever since.

And they've been able to ensconce a similarly minded thug in the White House.


9. " The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of existence, such as the Civil War, amendment should be the sole means of circumventing the Constitution. For if a president joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men.

Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions whose purpose is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind?

Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it.

Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment. There is no allowance for a president to override it according to his supposed superior conception. "
From a speech delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on September 20, 2010 by Mike Pence,U.S. Representative
Indiana's Sixth Congressional District.
The title of the thread is"Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution"



Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment.
And the same applies to dictates by judges or justices.


Don't Liberals believe in preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution?

Not hardly.

Where in the Constitution is the authority of Judicial Review given to the Supreme Court, and why does the Supreme Court so often decide issues on a 5-4 vote?

I'm sure such experts as Mike Pence and PoliticalChic have answers, and PC will respond with her own spin explaining the error of Marbury v. Madison, and how much better we would be if it were overruled by the Roberts Court.

Liberals however accept the ruling as common sense, as well as our adoption of a foreign law, that being the common law of England. Funny, the conservative element believes in the Natural Law, but few understand what the Common Law is based upon.

1. The 'right' was stolen by John Marshall.
His aim was to increase the power of his court and of the executive branch.
Of course, the executive agreed with him.

It was not the aim of the Founders.


2. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.





2.Marshall represents a pivotal point in the pirating of power by the federal government.
Consider the Judiciary act of 1789, in which section 25 hands powers to the court: " One of the most controversial provisions of the act, Section 25, granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions from the high courts of the states when those decisions involved questions of the constitutionality of state or federal laws or authorities."
History of the Federal Judiciary

a. Had Marshall read the amendment through the prism of it's intended purpose, how would he have viewed section 25?

Yup: unconstitutional.

I suggest most humbly (a bit of sarcasm, here) that you read John Marshall, A Life in Law, copyright 1974 by Leonard Baker. A very good though long read, based on his service as a Soldier in the Revolutionary War, his years as a lawyer, diplomat and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for three decades. One thing you might learn is, he was one of the Founders.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution

At the time the Constitution (1787) was adopted it was considered a CLASSICAL LIBERAL document. because the same as well at the Declaration of Independence recognized NATURAL RIGHTS.

Nowadays NEITHER the liberals (left wing fascists) nor the Conservatives (right wing fascists) recognize natural rights.

Both parties recognize GOVERNMENT SUPREMACY , individual nowadays are allow to exercise PRIVILEGES which are subject to governmental bureaucratic discretion.


Hence , my response is the CONSTITUTION AND CLASSICAL LIBERALISM.


.

Classical liberals believe the government was a greater threat to personal liberty and wellbeing than the forces outside of government, such as business.

After the horrors of unfettered capitalism ravaged nations like the US and Great Britain, a new liberalism emerged that (rightly) recognized that the biggest threat to personal liberty and wellbeing were not the government, but instead the private sector, the corporations, the money interests, etc.

That's where the split occurred.

The "Horrors" of unfettered Capitalism is a bullshit concept created by parasites, fascists, socialists and government supremacists in order to manipulate the government into:

a) feeding you
2) clothing you
3) insuring you
4) providing free education up to , and including , community college
5) quenching your thirst
6) invading every country on the face of mother earth


After the FDR 1935 ' Coup d'Etat, the Constitution (1787) was abolished and the Welfare/Warfare Police State Constitution of 1935 was adopted.


.

If you deny the horrors of capitalism then you simply don't know history.

Well said. Oh right, I just said that as well.

We independently reached the obvious response.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution


We made that choice long ago, in 1789, when we ratified the Constitution. A document that outlawed the socialism called "modern liberalism".

Liberals have been trying to evade, misinterpret, and otherwise violate that document ever since.

And they've been able to ensconce a similarly minded thug in the White House.


9. " The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of existence, such as the Civil War, amendment should be the sole means of circumventing the Constitution. For if a president joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men.

Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions whose purpose is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind?

Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it.

Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment. There is no allowance for a president to override it according to his supposed superior conception. "
From a speech delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on September 20, 2010 by Mike Pence,U.S. Representative
Indiana's Sixth Congressional District.
The title of the thread is"Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution"



Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment.
And the same applies to dictates by judges or justices.


Don't Liberals believe in preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution?

Not hardly.

Where in the Constitution is the authority of Judicial Review given to the Supreme Court, and why does the Supreme Court so often decide issues on a 5-4 vote?

I'm sure such experts as Mike Pence and PoliticalChic have answers, and PC will respond with her own spin explaining the error of Marbury v. Madison, and how much better we would be if it were overruled by the Roberts Court.

Liberals however accept the ruling as common sense, as well as our adoption of a foreign law, that being the common law of England. Funny, the conservative element believes in the Natural Law, but few understand what the Common Law is based upon.

1. The 'right' was stolen by John Marshall.
His aim was to increase the power of his court and of the executive branch.
Of course, the executive agreed with him.

It was not the aim of the Founders.


2. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.





2.Marshall represents a pivotal point in the pirating of power by the federal government.
Consider the Judiciary act of 1789, in which section 25 hands powers to the court: " One of the most controversial provisions of the act, Section 25, granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions from the high courts of the states when those decisions involved questions of the constitutionality of state or federal laws or authorities."
History of the Federal Judiciary

a. Had Marshall read the amendment through the prism of it's intended purpose, how would he have viewed section 25?

Yup: unconstitutional.

I suggest most humbly (a bit of sarcasm, here) that you read John Marshall, A Life in Law, copyright 1974 by Leonard Baker. A very good though long read, based on his service as a Soldier in the Revolutionary War, his years as a lawyer, diplomat and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for three decades. One thing you might learn is, he was one of the Founders.

You have every reason to be humble.


Now....what does this post have to do with posts #80 and #82???


Oh....nothing.

You're simply trying to obfuscate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The title of the thread is"Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution"

Don't Liberals believe in preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution?

No....they don't.



10. Woodrow Wilson, Progressive/Democrat actually suggested discarding the Constitution.
"Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …"
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]



To understand how the Constitution was rewritten in the 20th century by the Progressive movement, the place to start is with Woodrow Wilson. …Wilson too re-made Princeton, this time on the model of the German university. At a time in which German scholarship was in fashion, he was a champion of Hegelianism, helping to introduce a strain of thought into the American body politic that was fundamentally opposed to the natural rights philosophy of the Founders. Hegel’s historicism—the belief that all thought is historically conditioned—was the intellectual foundation of Progressivism and of Wilson’s belief that the Constitution was an antique absurdity. Wilson championed the idea of “the living Constitution” which enables activist judges to re-write the Constitution according to the Progressive notions of the day
Woodrow Wilson's Constitution
by Robert Curry



a. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, "Society and Democracy in Germany").


So we have birthed a nation of automatons who bow to the state, just as Hegel, and Wilson would have ordered.
They are the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats.


God bless the late, great, nation of America.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Learn the difference between conservatives and liberals. Those were CONSERVATIVES who fought against giving the women the vote.

The Progressives, led by Theodore Roosevelt at the time, were supporters of women's suffrage.

The Progressives you seek to demonize on a regular basis. Yes, those Progressives. Your enemies from our history.

Tap dance all you like.....Republicans forced Democrats to give women the vote.

In reality the vote was bipartisan on the 19th.

Wrong again.

In reality the Republicans fought the Democrat filibuster.


1. It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment - Women 8217 s History - HISTORY.com

2. The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because Republicans had retaken control of the House. Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

3. The Senate vote was approved only after a Democrat filibuster; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it….and 54% of the Democrats

You are so dishonest! The party of TR and the progressives is not the par;ty of today, nor was it progressive when its leadership lobbied against the Equal Rights Amendment.

Q. Why do you continue posting one of the Big Lies?

A. Because the Republican Party is no longer the Party of Lincoln, TR or IKE, and history isn't on her side [which is why she constantly works to revise it,].

I see the main error in your post...so let's get this straight:
I am never dishonest, and you are never intelligent.

Clear?


The Hegelian, German viewpoint of supremacy of the state was and is un-American.
Progressives/Liberals/Democrats subscribe to same.

You are simply stupid.

Smart enough to recognize and ad hominem, and to have noted that is your safe harbor, used more often than to travel on the sea of debate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Tap dance all you like.....Republicans forced Democrats to give women the vote.

In reality the vote was bipartisan on the 19th.

Wrong again.

In reality the Republicans fought the Democrat filibuster.


1. It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment - Women 8217 s History - HISTORY.com

2. The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because Republicans had retaken control of the House. Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

3. The Senate vote was approved only after a Democrat filibuster; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it….and 54% of the Democrats

You are so dishonest! The party of TR and the progressives is not the par;ty of today, nor was it progressive when its leadership lobbied against the Equal Rights Amendment.

Q. Why do you continue posting one of the Big Lies?

A. Because the Republican Party is no longer the Party of Lincoln, TR or IKE, and history isn't on her side [which is why she constantly works to revise it,].

I see the main error in your post...so let's get this straight:
I am never dishonest, and you are never intelligent.

Clear?


The Hegelian, German viewpoint of supremacy of the state was and is un-American.
Progressives/Liberals/Democrats subscribe to same.

You are simply stupid.

Smart enough to recognize and ad hominem, and to have noted that is your safe harbor, used more often than to travel on the sea of debate.

I've explained before, and our interaction has proven it so.....I merely correctly identify, and if you see that as ad hominem, so be it.

I'm cursed with the prescription of telling the truth.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution


We made that choice long ago, in 1789, when we ratified the Constitution. A document that outlawed the socialism called "modern liberalism".

Liberals have been trying to evade, misinterpret, and otherwise violate that document ever since.

And they've been able to ensconce a similarly minded thug in the White House.


9. " The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of existence, such as the Civil War, amendment should be the sole means of circumventing the Constitution. For if a president joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men.

Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions whose purpose is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind?

Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it.

Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment. There is no allowance for a president to override it according to his supposed superior conception. "
From a speech delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on September 20, 2010 by Mike Pence,U.S. Representative
Indiana's Sixth Congressional District.
The title of the thread is"Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution"



Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment.
And the same applies to dictates by judges or justices.


Don't Liberals believe in preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution?

Not hardly.

Where in the Constitution is the authority of Judicial Review given to the Supreme Court, and why does the Supreme Court so often decide issues on a 5-4 vote?

I'm sure such experts as Mike Pence and PoliticalChic have answers, and PC will respond with her own spin explaining the error of Marbury v. Madison, and how much better we would be if it were overruled by the Roberts Court.

Liberals however accept the ruling as common sense, as well as our adoption of a foreign law, that being the common law of England. Funny, the conservative element believes in the Natural Law, but few understand what the Common Law is based upon.

1. The 'right' was stolen by John Marshall.
His aim was to increase the power of his court and of the executive branch.
Of course, the executive agreed with him.

It was not the aim of the Founders.


2. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.





2.Marshall represents a pivotal point in the pirating of power by the federal government.
Consider the Judiciary act of 1789, in which section 25 hands powers to the court: " One of the most controversial provisions of the act, Section 25, granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions from the high courts of the states when those decisions involved questions of the constitutionality of state or federal laws or authorities."
History of the Federal Judiciary

a. Had Marshall read the amendment through the prism of it's intended purpose, how would he have viewed section 25?

Yup: unconstitutional.

I suggest most humbly (a bit of sarcasm, here) that you read John Marshall, A Life in Law, copyright 1974 by Leonard Baker. A very good though long read, based on his service as a Soldier in the Revolutionary War, his years as a lawyer, diplomat and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for three decades. One thing you might learn is, he was one of the Founders.

You have every reason to be humble.


Now....what does this post have to do with posts #80 and #82???


Oh....nothing.

You're simply trying to obfuscate.

You wrote in #80:

1. The 'right' was stolen by John Marshall.
His aim was to increase the power of his court and of the executive branch.
Of course, the executive agreed with him.

It was not the aim of the Founders.

John Marshall was one of the founders! You really ought to remember what you write, or KISS (that is, keep it simple, stupid). Don't ever assume the Founders all agreed, the document was a compromise.

No one was yelling Socialism and whining that the document needed to be repealed because they didn't agree. Yes the Federalists and Demoratic Republicans argued, heatedly, but only the issue of slavery ever threatened the Constitution - until the GOP went rogue.

 

[norwegen]

1. Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2. Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. For Classical Liberals, known today as conservatives, there should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


3. The Founders, Classical Liberals, operated under the view that government is a necessary evil, simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, and incorporated principles based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

a. Classical liberalism, the optimistic doctrine that gave us liberty, democracy, progress, was a moral project. It held that human society could always better itself by encouraging the good and diminishing the bad. It rested, therefore, on a very clear understanding that there was a higher cause than self-realization: that there were such things as right and wrong and that the former should be preferred over the latter. But the belief that autonomous individuals had the right to make subjective judgment about what was right for them in pursuit of their unchallengeable entitlement to happiness destroyed that understanding. Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
“The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284





4. There are several incorrigible liars who insist that the Founders were of the same mentality as those we call 'liberals.'
Nothing could be further from the truth.
To see how this pertains to the title of the thread, "Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution," notice that those known as Liberals today, actually the group called Socialists until communist John Dewey had them steal the name 'Liberal,' work for the very opposite: collectivism, socialist economic dominance, and unlimited, overreaching government.


a. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


b. Dewey reveled in the thought that the war might force Americans to “give up much of our economic freedom…we shall have to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.” Taking liberties - LA Times

I submit that as it regards individual rights and responsibilities, true liberalism DOES follow the Constitution. In other words the reason why I support gay marriage, and a whole host of socially liberal ideas is because the Declaration of Independence, memorialized those ideals as the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. So long as I don't violate YOUR rights by my actions, you should likewise not be allowed to violate my rights.

The DoI declares that our national principles are rooted in the natural law, which does not include gay marriage.

Gay marriage and a host of socially liberal ideas are controversial. Controversy does not promote our pursuit of happiness.