For the U.S. Constitution


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : For the U.S. Constitution

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 7 · Next
Author Message

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 38,854,918
RAC: 42,202
Message 1403902 - Posted: 16 Aug 2013, 13:29:11 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 20:57:58 UTC

--

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1403918 - Posted: 16 Aug 2013, 15:59:58 UTC
Last modified: 16 Aug 2013, 16:09:46 UTC

1) No big deal for most but a big deal for those who've made an easy living out of no term limits.
2)good luck with getting 37 states to agree to this in under 10 years

3)again good luck since there is nothing in the Constitution to warrent this. Since we are all about following the Constitution you'll need an amendment or if you choose to be a strict constructionist you wouldn't change a thing
4)welcome to libertarian doctrine. Not happening. This would restrict the Gov't from mobilizing for emergencies like War or other national disasters unless of course the gov't can put asiide large sums of money in a rainy day fund

5)and basically do nothing each congressional session but reauthorize laws. better make it up to the law. some can stand forever unless repealed or do it for shorter terms for non long term acts. Nothing is as simple as pigeon holing a rule.

6) not even aware this is or was an issue andwhy it would even matter

7) generally speaking I don't see this as a problem since most times people are compensated above market value because they are taking someones home or business. A better change would be a block on imminent domain when any private interest has an interest in taking the property. An example was the Dallas Cowboys stadium that Jerry Jones wanted and was a majority partner in building. Seems to me this is an abuse.

8) pretty sure they already have that worked out since the constitution has been amended multiple times.
9)absolutely unconstitutional. The supremacy rule makes individual states arguements mote. Regardless of the states desire to say no they get no choice in the matter. Otherwise we'd be looking at another secessionist movement which the supremacy rule overrules. States joined the union and agreed to uphold the constitution. I don't recall a pick and choose amendment to date.
10) welcome to national jim crow laws. sorry not going to happen. The last I checked you loved states rights but now insist that the national gov't interfere in local politics and id laws.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 38,854,918
RAC: 42,202
Message 1403961 - Posted: 16 Aug 2013, 18:09:22 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 20:57:48 UTC

--

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1403985 - Posted: 16 Aug 2013, 19:36:35 UTC

what you are describing is a libertarian utopia where you decide what to keep and what to change in the constitution.

This is a bit off putting from a person that insists on strict contructionist views of the constitution.

This so called plan is abotu as good as the one you decribe as ignoring the constitution beceause in fact your plans do exactly that and are at best a high handed attempt to circumvent the constitution all the while saying it whole heartedly supports it. I call shenanigans
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 38,854,918
RAC: 42,202
Message 1404015 - Posted: 16 Aug 2013, 20:46:54 UTC - in response to Message 1403985.
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 20:57:32 UTC

--

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12402
Credit: 6,714,170
RAC: 8,793
United States
Message 1404034 - Posted: 16 Aug 2013, 22:02:18 UTC - in response to Message 1404015.

what you are describing is a libertarian utopia where you decide what to keep and what to change in the constitution.


I *am* WE THE PEOPLE. So, yes, I agree with that statement.

"I is WE" Sounds like a case of multiple personality disorder if you ask me.

You are one. While some may agree with you, it isn't the 3/4 needed to change the constitution. If you can't stand that, my advice is to buy a one way ticket.


____________

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 12,058,087
RAC: 4,604
United States
Message 1404039 - Posted: 16 Aug 2013, 22:20:12 UTC - in response to Message 1404034.

And that really is the heart of the matter -- given the requirements, getting a new constitutional amendment, let alone a new constitution -- requires either heavy duty disenfranchisement, or a fairly effective form of mass hypnosis.

Instead, advocates seem to think that *their* mindset is not only the only *good* mindset, but that it is the overwhelmingly *dominant* mind set. That suggests to me yet another demonstration of the failure of the readily available psychoactive medications in the country.


I *am* WE THE PEOPLE. So, yes, I agree with that statement.

"I is WE" Sounds like a case of multiple personality disorder if you ask me.

You are one. While some may agree with you, it isn't the 3/4 needed to change the constitution. If you can't stand that, my advice is to buy a one way ticket.

[/quote]


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 38,854,918
RAC: 42,202
Message 1404094 - Posted: 17 Aug 2013, 1:11:37 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 20:57:12 UTC

--

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12402
Credit: 6,714,170
RAC: 8,793
United States
Message 1404145 - Posted: 17 Aug 2013, 4:37:10 UTC - in response to Message 1404094.

Well apparently you three don't like the U.S. Constitution and have become totally intolerant of other people who disagree with you.

I love the U.S. Constitution, including its amendments. Has a couple of rough spots, but what plan doesn't?

From your perspective, it's either your way or the highway. Not very open minded, are we?

I see you saw yourself in the mirror. Apparently you can not believe the constitution can be read any other way except yours and that you, and you alone, are the final arbiter of meaning.

Shortly after, these protest became known as "tea parties" but the political establishment and the media ignored how fast they were growing. IGNORE PHASE

Funny how you revised history, I remember them being well covered and not ignored.

The new tea party

Which tea party is that. I see dozens of groups claiming they are "the tea party." Which one is the real tea party. Or which one do you belong to?

is not part of the republican party.

Then you must be fooling the people who claim membership, the 80%! Oh, you mean they aren't subordinate to them in a legal sense.

Soon some of you in here will realize the errors of your ways and many other statists will realize the promises of the current regime were all lies.

Please do not call me revolting names, absolutely the opposite of my views; names which should be reserved for republicans and those who cleave to them who wish to control every aspect of personal life.

And maybe, JUST MAYBE, within the next couple of election cycles, we can start the long, arduous process of digging our way out

As long as the tea party cleaves to true statists, people who wish to control every aspect of personal life, they will not hold anything but fringe power. Such a position is repugnant to a super majority of Americans and also not tolerant of others or their views. Perhaps they will succeed where the antebellum south failed and split the nation, causing its downfall and eventual takeover by the communist hordes.

Centralizing power in the hands of a dictator is no way to live.

If the tea party honestly believes that is the plan, then they are a conspiracy nut lunatic fringe in need of de-brainwashing and psychoactive drugs to control their delusions. [Note your words are taken exactly as written, as you claim to do with the constitution.]

I do see where the tea party wants to repeal the 14th amendment. What they fail to understand is that would cement those arbitrary and capricious exemptions you just railed against as being the norm and totally constitutionally legal. Also they wish to go back to those 3/5's persons. They apparently want to bring back Dred Scott and Jim Crow in the same fell swoop. Perhaps you should teach them a history lesson, such as Bush v. Gore being decided for Gore without the 14th.

As long as the tea party clings to its radical elements it either will not accomplish any of its goals and only sow hatred and preform subversive acts or it will drag political discourse in the USA to the same level as is presently occurring in Egypt. It is not hard to see them taking on the exact same role as the Muslim Brotherhood is.

I expect to be further insulted.

Then I suggest you not troll with flame bait, it is very unseemly for a moderator to do so.

Noun moderation:
1) Quality of being moderate and avoiding extremes
2) The trait of avoiding excesses
3) The action of lessening in severity or intensity

Reagan:
1) Compromise

____________

297902
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 31 Dec 99
Posts: 1044
Credit: 5,522,050
RAC: 229
Uruguay
Message 1404149 - Posted: 17 Aug 2013, 5:13:11 UTC - in response to Message 1404145.
Last modified: 17 Aug 2013, 5:24:10 UTC

Then I suggest you not troll with flame bait, it is very unseemly for a moderator to do so.

Don't worry Gary.
Guy is schizoid and will in his own words

...I left. Glad to be back after almost three months of self-banishment.

because of self moderation.

It's not against the rules to talk about a moderator's actions against himself is it?

297902
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 31 Dec 99
Posts: 1044
Credit: 5,522,050
RAC: 229
Uruguay
Message 1404184 - Posted: 17 Aug 2013, 6:47:37 UTC

Gary.
Is this Guy guy the same Guy who kept posting the "You can't get pregnant in the butt" cartoon in the "Guy Marriage" thread?
Dat be funny if Berkley be stacking the supreme court with homeophobes.
____________
My Halloween costume was so good they sentenced me to 25 Years to Life.


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 38,854,918
RAC: 42,202
Message 1404287 - Posted: 17 Aug 2013, 12:51:57 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 20:56:34 UTC

--

Message 1404289 - Posted: 17 Aug 2013, 13:02:52 UTC

You don't want what's happening in Egypt to happen in the U.S.?


Well, yeah, I do. Then I could go be Like A Hustlin'Hussein and Go All "Egypt", "Benghazi" and "Syrian" on certain DEMenemies.

Do a little Cleaning Out. Phony Like.

Might make A Film 'bout it.

Bound FO "IT" IT. There "There"
____________


Profile Robert Waite
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2201
Credit: 5,534,990
RAC: 4,698
Canada
Message 1404296 - Posted: 17 Aug 2013, 14:13:58 UTC

Be careful guys.
I used to end up taking sabbaticals quite often because another person in Guy's position would initiate a disagreement and after several posts he'd drop out of the discussion for a bit, then pop back in to wield his hammer of justice on me.

I was sent to the woodshed while he chuckled quietly to himself at his cleverness.
____________
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”
~Thomas Jefferson

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,748,752
RAC: 2,911
United States
Message 1404328 - Posted: 17 Aug 2013, 16:34:25 UTC - in response to Message 1404094.

The new tea party is not part of the republican party. The new tea party hold democrats AND republicans responsible for excessive spending, incessant pork barrel projects to benefit special constituent groups, and intrusion into the private lives of citizens.

Oh, they'll take a balanced view will they?

And maybe, JUST MAYBE, within the next couple of election cycles, we can start the long, arduous process of digging our way out (TRANSFORMATION PHASE) from the damage done to this country by liberals in the past 40/50/60 years in time for our grandchildren to experience real prosperity once again.

Do you support this "new tea party" or not? If you do, it doesn't appear that you favor their balanced view, unless you are saying the only damage done by republicans was the fault of the liberal wing of that party.

____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12402
Credit: 6,714,170
RAC: 8,793
United States
Message 1404346 - Posted: 17 Aug 2013, 17:31:41 UTC - in response to Message 1404287.

Looking at Egypt, a religious movement, Muslim brotherhood, wants power.

Looking at the USA a religious movement, tea party, wants power.

Both of them are statists. Yes, statists! They want more power to decide how everyone will practice their brand of religion than the Communist government in Mainland China has today!

I will fight to prevent any part of such an ugly anti-American movement to ever have an iota of power here.

I am libertarian, a real less government person. I see the tea flavored kool aid for what it is. A massive last gasp power grab by a self marginalized shrinking minority with delusions of grandeur.

They may make noise for a while, and 501(c)4's may hide who they are for a while, but eventually, as it must, they will be revealed in all their ugly self loathing character and be soundly rejected by true Americans.

Want to know if you are a statist?

Is a Federal Government regulation that prohibits all governments, state, county, city, local agency, etc., under it from restricting rights of individual citizens to freely exercise a given right without undue cost and delay more or less government, even though it sets up a bureaucracy to monitor and enforce it?

I just hope everyone remembers Todd Akin, Mr. legitimate rape, is a fine example of the tea party, being a member of its caucus. This is what the tea party is!


____________

Message 1404357 - Posted: 17 Aug 2013, 18:02:31 UTC

I will fight to prevent any part of such an ugly anti-American movement to ever have an iota of power here.


Gunna wear a uniform to dat fight? Shoulder a weapon? Be part of an Ugly Mob?

Or hold signs, protest, and vote?

Sign petitions.

Tea Power! Drink it baby.

Bound FO "IT" IT. There? There.
____________


Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31454
Credit: 12,189,001
RAC: 28,483
United Kingdom
Message 1404392 - Posted: 17 Aug 2013, 18:30:00 UTC

Both of them are statists. Yes, statists! They want more power to decide how everyone will practice their brand of religion than the Communist government in Mainland China has today!

Hmmmmm


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 38,854,918
RAC: 42,202
Message 1404461 - Posted: 17 Aug 2013, 21:44:15 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 20:55:56 UTC

--

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12402
Credit: 6,714,170
RAC: 8,793
United States
Message 1404485 - Posted: 17 Aug 2013, 23:32:58 UTC - in response to Message 1404461.
Last modified: 17 Aug 2013, 23:34:28 UTC

And squirrel guy, comparing the Muslim brotherhood religion to what ever religion you perceive connected with the Tea party and calling them the same is like saying *some* mushrooms are poisonous; therefore, *all* mushrooms are poisonous. There is no comparison between what's happening in Egypt and what's happening here in the U.S.

Said by someone who is inside a box and can't see over the top.

And you are confused with (or are purposely trying to confuse) the meaning of the word "statist." The tea party is fighting AGAINST statism.

No, they are against federal power, e.g. and anti-federalist. They are not against all government power.

History lesson, we tried that, it was called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Didn't work very well.

If you truly say you are for smaller government, then you should be campaigning to put power back in the hands of "THE STATES, OR TO THE PEOPLE, RESPECTIVELY." We no longer have government that governs with the consent of the governed. Based on what I've seen you write in here, it looks like you should know this.

A true libertarian wants there to be as close as possible to nil power at every level of government. And right now it looks like several of the states are dictators of their fiefdoms, so you want to hand them more power, not reduce it?

As to "the people," in the era of 501(c)4's, 50%+1 is not a smart way to govern.

<ed>typo's
____________

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 7 · Next

Message boards : Politics : For the U.S. Constitution

Copyright © 2014 University of California