The Cons ution!!!

[Clipper Nation]

typyical DISTORTION of the Cons ution by ignorant right-wingers.

The Articles of Confederation were a failure, a mess, so the Cons ution greatly strengthened the federal govt as the only SOVEREIGN power whose laws and regs trump all state laws.

"Strengthening the federal government" =/= "do whatever the you want"...

If your vision of how this country should be run were a reality, there'd be no Cons ution because the federal government could do whatever they wanted at the expense of the states and the citizenry....

[boutons_deux]

"Strengthening the federal government" =/= "do whatever the you want"...

If your vision of how this country should be run were a reality, there'd be no Cons ution because the federal government could do whatever they wanted at the expense of the states and the citizenry....

your vision is an ignorant, paranoid fantasy

[Blake]

huh??

hmmm. Yeah, the bullet isn't stupid.

[Clipper Nation]

your vision is an ignorant, paranoid fantasy

No, it's a fact...

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master.”
- George Washington

“Power must never be trusted without a check.”
- John Adams

[SA210]

I understand the devotion to the Cons ution.

With the reverence so many pay to it, however, I'm disappointed by: (a) how little people are actually concerned with learning about the do ent and its application to American society; and (b) the extent to which people are willing to distort those understandings -- and to inconsistently apply them -- to suit their own political ends.

I agree, Obama should stop doing that.

[boutons_deux]

No, it's a fact...

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master.”
- George Washington

“Power must never be trusted without a check.”
- John Adams

and these very FFs created the Cons ution strong enough to keep the fragile, infant country from destroying itself as the "sovereign" states were going their own way

[spursncowboys]

hmmm. Yeah, the bullet isn't stupid.

Worthless and clumsy

[Blake]

Worthless and clumsy

does that make you feel better about pretending to take a bullet for the stupid/ignorant people out there?

[Blake]

I agree, Obama should stop doing that.

Why are you singling him out? Name one politician that doesn't.

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you singling him out? Name one politician that doesn't.

In before the Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich meme.

[Blake]

In before the Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich meme.

Since we're on ignore, could be a while.

[Clipper Nation]

and these very FFs created the Cons ution strong enough to keep the fragile, infant country from destroying itself as the "sovereign" states were going their own way

And limited enough to guard against tyranny and rule through special interests and expediency, as long as the do ent is adhered to....

[spursncowboys]

does that make you feel better about pretending to take a bullet for the stupid/ignorant people out there?

What do you keep talking about 'taking a bullet'?

[boutons_deux]

And limited enough to guard against tyranny and rule through special interests and expediency, as long as the do ent is adhered to....

tyranny! freedom! liberty! marans!

[LakerHater]

UberFacts ‏@UberFactsJohn F. Kennedy did not accept his presidential salary of $150,000 a year. Instead, he donated it to charity.



Obama wouldnt do that!! Mic e wouldnt let him! they get FREE vacations!

[leemajors]

UberFacts ‏@UberFactsJohn F. Kennedy did not accept his presidential salary of $150,000 a year. Instead, he donated it to charity.



Obama wouldnt do that!! Mic e wouldnt let him! they get FREE vacations!

Kennedy was also filthy rich from bootlegging.

[spursncowboys]

Kennedy was also filthy rich from bootlegging.

You mean his dad.

[SA210]

UberFacts ‏@UberFactsJohn F. Kennedy did not accept his presidential salary of $150,000 a year. Instead, he donated it to charity.



Obama wouldnt do that!! Mic e wouldnt let him! they get FREE vacations!

on Obama's best day (which isn't saying much, at all) he couldn't be 1/10 of JFK, not even close. The comparisons morons gave at one time weren't only hilarious and unfounded, but a complete disgrace and pure blasphemy.

lol

[leemajors]

You mean his dad.

Sorry, I forgot to make it plural.

[Th'Pusher]

Sorry, I forgot to make it plural.

Actually the whole bootlegging thing is a bit of a myth. Kennedy's definitely made money in booze, but it was all completely legal.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ging-myth.html

[elbamba]

It seems to me that liberals use the "the Cons ution is a living do ent and must be interpreted to meet the needs of the day". Conservatives, especially those like Scalia, say "No, the Cons ution is Dead and the only way to interpret any part of it is to know what the writers of the Cons ution meant when they wrote it".

Support for the more liberal position is found in things like the amendment to free slaves, etc. Support for the conservative side is found in the "If it doesn't specifically say it in the cons ution as written 220 years ago it cannot be included now" argument, which is seen in those who equate the absence of a specifically stated right to privacy as a means to deny the abortion decision, or same sex couples, or whatever.

Not sure that strict cons utionalists would claim the Cons ution is dead. They would argue that the founding fathers knew that while they needed to leave a basic set of rights and principles that would generally stand the test of time, they had just as little right to bind the next generation to their laws as England had to bind the colonists rights to English law. In arguing that the Cons ution lives they would point to Article V which clearly allows the Cons ution to be amended when 2/3 of Congress and the States feel that the Cons ution needs to be amended to meet the needs of today.

Scalia in particular would have no problem with a state passing some of the laws that you reference in your post because the Cons ution is silent on this; however, he would argue that if you want to broaden an amendment to say more than it actually says, just amend the cons ution and spell it out specifically. That is perfectly cons utional. That would be my guess on what Scalia and other strict cons utionalists would argue, if they are being true to what a strict cons utionalist believes.

FYI, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were not liberal positions and not were pushed by conservatives at the time they were passed but it was necessary that conservatives supported the amendments to get them to pass. Having said that, Civil War conservatism and liberalism were very different to the contemporary political definitions.

[Blake]

el bamba

[Th'Pusher]

Not sure that strict cons utionalists would claim the Cons ution is dead. They would argue that the founding fathers knew that while they needed to leave a basic set of rights and principles that would generally stand the test of time, they had just as little right to bind the next generation to their laws as England had to bind the colonists rights to English law. In arguing that the Cons ution lives they would point to Article V which clearly allows the Cons ution to be amended when 2/3 of Congress and the States feel that the Cons ution needs to be amended to meet the needs of today.

Scalia in particular would have no problem with a state passing some of the laws that you reference in your post because the Cons ution is silent on this; however, he would argue that if you want to broaden an amendment to say more than it actually says, just amend the cons ution and spell it out specifically. That is perfectly cons utional. That would be my guess on what Scalia and other strict cons utionalists would argue, if they are being true to what a strict cons utionalist believes.

FYI, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were not liberal positions and not were pushed by conservatives at the time they were passed but it was necessary that conservatives supported the amendments to get them to pass. Having said that, Civil War conservatism and liberalism were very different to the contemporary political definitions.

This does not necessarily contradict the point you are making but Scalia definitely believes the cons ution is dead: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...853.html?hp=r1

[boutons_deux]

Justice Scalia: The Cons ution Is ‘Dead, Dead, Dead’

Scalia accurately identified just what the opposite of a living do ent is during remarks at Southern Methodist University, disparaging children who come to the court and refer to the Cons ution as “living”:


It’s not a living do ent. It’s dead, dead, dead.

While there are reasonable interpretations of the Cons ution that are defined as something other than “living,” Scalia’s extreme suggestion that the Cons ution is “dead” reflects how ill-equipped his own brand of originalism is to address problems that are quite alive and well. But on this occasion, Scalia seemed to have realized the absurdity of his own claim, backtracking later in the event to say that “dead” was not a good description after all. “It’s an enduring do ent, not a dead one,” he said.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ead-dead-dead/

text worshippers, GFY

JINO Scalia knows damn well amending the Cons ution is effectively impossible.

Scalia typifies the ty quality of Repug judges.

[Clipper Nation]

It's not supposed to be easy to amend the Cons ution, that's what you people don't understand... the Founders didn't want the federal government to have unlimited scope and power....