The Cult of the Constitution

Alex Altman: “But the notion that our governing document should never evolve has always struck me as mildly insane.”

Somebody may want to inform all of the lawless, anti-Constitution, anti-American lunatics like Alex Altman that the United States Constitution actually provides for it to “evolve”. It’s called the amendment process. The Constitution does NOT provide for lawless, anti-Constitution, anti-American radicals (e.g., Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and pretty much every federal judge nominated by a Democrat president and several nominated by Republicans, e.g., Brennan, Blackman, Stevens, Warren, etc.) to amend the constitution to fit his/her own, anti-American, leftist political preferences.

If you think that inter-species and same-sex so-called “marriage” are “fundamental constitutional rights” then you better find enough members of Congress and state legislatures to agree with you because inter-species and same-sex so-called “marriage” ain’t “fundamental constitutional rights” and cannot lawfully be invented by lawless, radical, anti-American lunatics like Alex Altman, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan. The same goes for abortion and dozens of other “rights” fabricated by lawless, anti-American, so-called “judges”.

Too many seem to view the Constitution as a static document. They use it selectively to underscore their believes, much like they use the Bible. The Constitution was designed to be flexible, to reflect its time. The Bill of Rights allowed modification.
To avoid the historic background of the Constitution is to ignore the evolution of our democratic republic.
You must recognize the whole of the text to understand the amendments.
Sad that the Republicans want to ignore that which makes us a great country, our ability to learn and adapt.

“…[I]nter-species and same-sex so-called ‘marriage’ ain’t [sic] ‘fundamental constitutional rights’ and cannot lawfully be invented by lawless, radical, anti-American lunatics like Alex Altman, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan. The same goes for abortion and dozens of other ‘rights’ fabricated by lawless, anti-American, so-called ‘judges’”
.
No further comment needed.

It was a comic moment for me. We need to read the Constitution in the chambers of Congress? It is funny, funny. The sad part is that the fundamentals of the document are torn apart, depending on the political view. This is like calling all right wingers “nazis”. It denigrates the evil of the original. What a waste of time, money, and media. Scratch the media part, this is Pavlov’s Bell to them. They salivate, as we see here.

Aside from the fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on same-sex marriage or else it would now be legal in every State rather than the handful it’s been made legal in, would you actually explain to me when and *how* these justices rewrote the constitution with their rulings? Even if you find a ruling you disagree with, there are incredibly long arguments written by Justices which explain in exquisite detail the legal precedence that supports their rulings so please, go to that information and demonstrate to us that you actually understand how they are “rewriting” the constitution (or, as some like to call it, legislating)

‘Meanwhile, here’s Thomas Jefferson weighing in…’
.
Alex,
Thanks for the quote. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it and it suits the current debates perfectly.
.
One has to wonder if Scalia, when he’s not busy conducting his seances to determine the framer’s original intent for Bush v. Gore or Money=Speech, bothers to read Jefferson at all. I suspect not much.

This entire congress is going to be rolling tide of gimmicks.

Why take interpret the constitution at all. The intentions of the framers were flawless in every way.

Any good historian when the constitution was written Thomas Jefferson and Jesus Christ sent texts and emails back and forth making sure that absolutely every scenario known to the human imagination would be covered. How unpatriotic and anti-Christian it is to imagine that this document did not clearly say that health care reform is immoral.

Obviously, this is a wonderful but human document where one must adapt the universal ideals set up to the technologically different realities.

Freedom of speech and press apply to phone calls, texts, emails, etc even though those devices did not exist, for example.

As far as the federal government being “limited” that is hard to define in this day and age when so few things are exclusively contained within a state’s borders.

Taking general concepts and applying them to modern reality is not a simple process nor one that Democrats, Liberals, Progressives and Social Democrats take lightly.

Sometimes I can’t help but think that Obama threw the 2010 elections to ensure his 2012 re-election.

I have to be careful giving my opinion. Justice Scalia tells us the Constitution does not afford equal protection to women. After all, he believes that the 14th Amendment was not meant to apply to women.
.
When the ERA was being promoted as an amendment, many on the right said it was unnecessary. I am sure Scalia was one of them. Well ladies, I guess we need to revive that old ERA. As long as there are Scalias in power, we can’t take our rights for granted.

Where is this “inter-species marriage” business coming from? Are you suggesting that people of different skin colors are different species, or that someone is trying to marry an animal?
Here’s the thing, textee: The Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution. That is its sole purpose. Because times change, because words can have different meanings, and because many parts of the Constitution were left intentionally broad.
And if you’re going to throw around terms like “anti-American,” maybe you should use your constitutional right to build a time machine and go hang out with McCarthy. I think you’d get along famously.

Honestly Apr,
.
When I hear about stories from my being a chemist in 1960 to the way things are today, women have made amazing progress.
.
My mother’s first name is sometimes a man’s name. In 1960 when college degrees were far less common, the companies sent recruiters to the campus and letters out to graduates asking them to interview.
.
More than once she responded and getting to the interview was promptly told “Oh! You’re a woman” and then told that she could not get the job at their lab because women would promptly marry and not be around long enough to make it worth their while.
.
My mother didn’t marry for another eight years.
.
Child care was unavailable in the suburbs over 40 years ago. So, when pregnant with my older brother, she had no reasonable option. One day at work, they suddenly introduced her to a man and said that this was her replacement and they were sorry that she had to work during any of her pregnancy.
.
Today all of those things are unheard of.
.
By contrast, although their, absolutely, has been progress, you do not see the same thing for minorities. Today I would say that every third or fourth doctor is a woman. But, few doctors are African American.
.
The days when doctors married nurses is past since male doctors so often marry female doctors instead.
.
All in all, I think women made out fairly well over the past 45 years.

“Pete Wehner, a former Bush Administration and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, writes: “For many modern-day liberals, the Constitution is, at best, a piece of quaint, even irrelevant, parchment.” In the context of his argument, this swipe follows from a discussion of how liberals’ dismissal of the today’s reading as a “gimmick” shows they don’t take the document seriously.”
.
Trouble is, wingers who read in the Constitutional made-up abortions like “corporate personhood” and support Federalist Society hack readings such as Citizens United, don’t get to lecture liberals about taking the original document seriously. The Founders didn’t make a mistake when they left the word “corporation” out of the Constitution.

Oh, and if you still haven’t figured it out yet, it’s just another lying sop to the rubes, like “small government,” deficits or jobs. They don’t give a sh!t about any of those things either. For that matter, neither do the rubes.

Rumor also has it that the Republicans requested the following portions to be merely whispered:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

and

“…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

……………………did you really just put ‘same-sex’ and ‘inter-species’ marriage in the same sentence??
as far as I know, i don’t think horses and eiffel towers have the same constitutional rights as a gay man.

OMG GUYZZ AMERIKUNS ARE ALLOWED TO WORSHIP THE CONSTITUTION TO BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS BECAUSE THEY INVENTED ALL IT’S PRINCIPLES WITH ITS BARE PATRIOTIC HANDS, oh wait…….

Well said apr2563.

I agree Shep. I think you nailed it. The reading was just more kabuki theater for the masses. It, along with the requirement that bills in the House cite the portion of the Constitution that give it the power, will change absolutely nothing.

by the way, i would add something more intelligent, but i keep going back to the homepage and snivelling at the headline ‘Why is John Boehner’s Gavel So Big?’

I’ll briefly explain my own originalist view of the Constitution and how it does not conflict with Jefferson’s observation. It is not that the Constitution should remain static for all time, merely that if it needs to be changed, that change should be brought about through Amendment, not through Supreme Court interpretation. The founders did not view the Constitution as a perfect document and recognized the need for future generations to be able to change it; that’s why the document itself includes procedures for how to change it. Essentially, the Constitution should evolve over time, but that evolution should take place through the Amendment process.

In sum: change the words, not the meaning of the words.

(Application to modern politics: I think Wickard stretches the definition of commerce too far, but would not necessarily be opposed to an Amendment granting Congress the power to individual insurance purchase decisions)

Just q short note : they were proud to read it aloud,
meanwhile some of them already violated Constitution taking part in voting not been even sworn.

We actually know, what Constitution is about.
Seems, those who read it aloud just do not care to follow it.

Anything else to comment after all?

Exactly, apr!
.
My favorite example: What part of “cruel and unusual punishment” is static?

Ironic that most of them wasn’t even there to listen to it and the speaker himself was elsewhere. It’s just not a stretch to call it theatre at that point.

GOP knows that most voters and especially theirs don’t care WHAT they do as long as they tell them something they like to hear. This is a inflexible, incurious crowd that think wearing the colors of our flag is the same as being super patriotic and the using god and constitution as often as possible is a good substitute to knowing whats in the constitution or what our founders thought about it.

The ideologue clique won’t watch ESPN and if they do they’ll focus on democrats and not the fact that their own house members can’t offer a yawn to show up.

This is the scene of the next 2 years. Instead of 9/11 it will be the constitution and the American people. Over and over. It’s the kind of holy words that is enough for most ideologues that think keeping this country great only require a flag, gun and a lot of irrational anger.

It is not that the Constitution should remain static for all time, merely that if it needs to be changed, that change should be brought about through Amendment, not through Supreme Court interpretation

Problem is, almost no one on the right believes that. How else do you explain the SC decisions regarding corporate personhood, Citizens United, et al.? How exactly do you propose we rein in the SC? It just doesn’t happen. Instead, the SC continues to be politicized.

This all reminds me of an episode in the original Star Trek (Captain Kirk visiting Planet Teabag):

(check from 5:40 on)

Then, there’s this:

Enjoy!

“This is the scene of the next 2 years. Instead of 9/11 it will be the constitution and the American people.”
.
Did you ever think of modern conservatives like autistics?
.

.
It’s definitely not in the constitution.
.
This is health care, 2010.
.
It’s not in the constitution.
.
The constitution was written in 1789.
.
1789

Sorry about that. I’m new at embedding. Here are links instead:

and

Thats not really fair to people with autism.

Earth to Alex Altman, Time magazine and every other political advocacy group in the Washington/New York/American press corps: Thomas Jefferson was not one of the “framers” of the Constitution. Jefferson was in freakin’ France when the Constitution was written.

“Tea Partyers treated it as though it were handed down from the heavens.”
.
Enjoy:
.
Principles of Liberty

The 28 Great Ideas That Are Changing the World

Discover the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Founding Fathers which they said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desired peace, prosperity, and freedom.

These beliefs have made possible more progress in 200 years than was made previously in over 5,000 years.

The following is a brief overview of the principles found in The Five Thousand Year Leap, and one chapter is devotes to each of these 28 principles.

Principle 1 – The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.

Natural law is God’s law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

Principle 2 – A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” – Benjamin Franklin

Principle 3 – The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders.

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who … will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.” – Samuel Adams

Principle 4 – Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” – George Washington

Principle 5 – All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible.

The American Founding Fathers considered the existence of the Creator as the most fundamental premise underlying all self-evident truth. They felt a person who boasted he or she was an atheist had just simply failed to apply his or her divine capacity for reason and observation.

Principle 6 – All mankind were created equal.

The Founders knew that in these three ways, all mankind are theoretically treated as:

1. Equal before God.

2. Equal before the law.

3. Equal in their rights.

Principle 7 – The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.

The Founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government any power except that which they have the lawful right to exercise themselves.

Principle 8 – Mankind are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights.

“Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner [of the right] shall himself commit some act that amounts to forfeiture.” – William Blackstone

Principle 9 – To protect human rights, God has revealed a code of divine law.

“The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found by comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity.” – William Blackstone

Principle 10 – The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.

“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legislative authority.” – Alexander Hamilton

Principle 11 – The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes … but when a long train of abuses and usurpations … evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” – Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence

Principle 12 – The United States of America shall be a republic.

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands….”

Principle 13 – A Constitution should protect the people from the frailties of their rulers.

“If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary…. [But lacking these] you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” – James Madison

Principle 14 – Life and liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure.

John Locke reasoned that God gave the earth and everything in it to the whole human family as a gift. Therefore the land, the sea, the acorns in the forest, the deer feeding in the meadow belong to everyone “in common.” However, the moment someone takes the trouble to change something from its original state of nature, that person has added his ingenuity or labor to make that change. Herein lies the secret to the origin of “property rights.”

Principle 15 – The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.

Prosperity depends upon a climate of wholesome stimulation with four basic freedoms in operation:

1. The Freedom to try.

2. The Freedom to buy.

3. The Freedom to sell.

4. The Freedom to fail.

Principle 16 – The government should be separated into three branches.

“I call you to witness that I was the first member of the Congress who ventured to come out in public, as I did in January 1776, in my Thoughts on Government … in favor of a government with three branches and an independent judiciary. This pamphlet, you know, was very unpopular. No man appeared in public to support it but yourself.” – John Adams

Principle 17 – A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power by the different branches of government.

“It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” – James Madison

Principle 18 – The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written Constitution.

The structure of the American system is set forth in the Constitution of the United States and the only weaknesses which have appeared are those which were allowed to creep in despite the Constitution.

Principle 19 – Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment is the most widely violated provision of the bill of rights. If it had been respected and enforced America would be an amazingly different country than it is today. This amendment provides:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Principle 20 – Efficiency and dispatch require that the government operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.

“Every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded [bound] by it.” – John Locke

Principle 21 – Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.

“The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent [to perform best]. – Thomas Jefferson

Principle 22 – A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men.

“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence of others, which cannot be where there is no law.” – John Locke

Principle 23 – A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.

“They made an early provision by law that every town consisting of so many families should be always furnished with a grammar school. They made it a crime for such a town to be destitute of a grammar schoolmaster for a few months, and subjected it to a heavy penalty. So that the education of all ranks of people was made the care and expense of the public, in a manner that I believe has been unknown to any other people, ancient or modern. The consequences of these establishments we see and feel every day [written in 1765]. A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare … as a comet or an earthquake.” John Adams

Principle 24 – A free people will not survive unless they stay strong.

“To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” – George Washington

Principle 25 – “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.”- Thomas Jefferson, given in his first inaugural address.

Principle 26 – The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore the government should foster and protect its integrity.

“There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated.” Alexis de Tocqueville

Principle 27 – The burden of debt is as destructive to human freedom as subjugation by conquest.

“We are bound to defray expenses [of the war] within our own time, and are unauthorized to burden posterity with them…. We shall all consider ourselves morally bound to pay them ourselves and consequently within the life [expectancy] of the majority.” – Thomas Jefferson

Principle 28 – The United States has a manifest destiny to eventually become a glorious example of God’s law under a restored Constitution that will inspire the entire human race.

The Founders sensed from the very beginning that they were on a divine mission. Their great disappointment was that it didn’t all come to pass in their day, but they knew that someday it would. John Adams wrote:

“I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.”

Wow, one correct historical fact does not make up for the egregiously ridiculous, erroneous, and down-right offensive “inter-species” comment. That in itself smacks of being more “un-American” than anything a sitting Supreme Court Justice could say (unless it involves a Coke can and a particular piece of hair).

I’ll bet Michele Bachmann is the one R who takes this reading seriously …cause she needs it.
.

.
(I remember watching this live, though NOT on FOX. Geithner’s facial expressions were hilarious, like Michele farted or something. Bernanke was infinitely more Zen-like.)

Amendment to come.

I know Patrick. We have come a long way baby. However, when we have people like Scalia and other retrograde officials, we can’t take our progress for granted.
.
I vividly remember when women had less opportunities. We still make less money for comparable jobs. That is why the Lily Ledbetter act was important. There is still a glass ceiling in many companies and in governmental positions. It is better
.
However, the ERA tried to codify women’s rights in a simple statement. We were mocked by people like Phyllis Schlafly and were never able to get the 3/4 approval of the states. It was close.
.
Phyllis Schlafly is still around. Scalia is still denying women’s rights in the Constitution. I am sure Roberts, Alioto, and Thomas may very well agree. Why should women still have to insist on rights? Those rights shouldn ‘t be that fragile. You do read the comments from the reactionary right on this site? If they had their way there would be no Title IX, family leave, equal pay laws or non-discrimination laws.
.
Until the troglodytes in our society disappear, women’s rights will always be in jeapordy. Walk in my high heels Patrick and you will know there still is gender disparity.

i don’t think he’s saying that jefferson was a framer, but that his words should be valued just as much as any of the direct participant’s words would. Republicans regard jefferson just as highly no?

Really funny, the 2 Constitutional brainiacs, Republicans Sessions and Fitzpatrick who were fund raising, thought it was ok to take their oath while watching the swearing in on television. The article links to a picture of them somberly swearing fidelity to the t.v..
.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/pete-sessions-breaks-rules-shuts-down-rules-committee-1.php?ref=fpa

“Which brings us to today’s reading. Is there anything wrong with starting a new session of Congress by reviewing one of America’s seminal texts? Not as far as it goes, though as Vanity Fair notes, you could argue it’s an expensive use of time: more than $1 million in opportunity cost, by one reckoning.”
.
NOW, you want to talk about opportunity costs? Are you freakin’ kiddng? Two years, Two whole years lost to what? An unpopular and unworkable heath care plan and NOW you want to talk about opportunity costs???
.
Imagine my foot kicking you in the ass.

True, Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written. However, through letters to various people, Jefferson happened to have had a lot of influence in what went in it. Also, it was Jefferson’s insistent demands that had the Articles of Federation scrapped and the Constitution written. The Articles of Federation would have given the central government a lot less power over the country than the Constitution does. The Constitution calls for a strong central government. Ironic that all those now wrapping themselves in the Constitution would also like our central government to have the power only to wage war.

The new requirement that all bills cite the portion of the Constitution that makes it legal will go by the wayside just as soon as some Republican wants to introduce a bill that doesn’t fit nicely into any portion of the document.
.
Where is the Republican anger that Boehner and Co. are already breaking all of their grand promises?

I doubt its rumor. They didn’t even bother so much whisper the portions about black people being 2/3 a person, about runaway, not even prohibition. Nope, those portions and several others were “stricken” from the Constitution.

It’s all about “e-x-p-r-e-s-s-l-y”. “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” This statement is from the Articles of Confederation, NOT the Constitution and helps explain why America’s first government failed. By limiting the powers of the government to only the areas specifically “expressed” the government was weak and ineffectual.

This problem was solved by the 10th Amendment which says, “The powers not ________ delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. Note, the word expressly has been omitted because it was realized limiting the government in this specific way caused it to be weak and ineffectual.
This is exactly the point made by John Marshall to the state of Maryland when it tried to outlaw the National Bank because it wasn’t in the Constitution. In affirming the right of the government to create the bank, he cited Art. I Sec. 8, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.” , the “implied powers” or better remembered “elastic clause” which is the legitimate basis for much that the government does today.
Most of these Constitution people don’t know what they are talking about and we are in danger of having our history re-written.

“The 11 Cities Where Women Out-Earn Men By The Biggest Margin”
.
NYC is on the list.
.
Here men have two choices: earn really big money or get really good looking and have a woman take us out to dinner.
.
“”While the average American women still earns 20 percent less than men, the gap is biggest among older women and smallest among younger women,” Chung said.”
.
OTOH, for my parents, in 40 years of marriage, 20 my father brought in far more money (13 of them all of their income). After a layoff from a high specialized field of Naval Architecture/ Marine Engineering everything turned around. My mother is still working to this day. So, I do know the importance of opportunities for women.

Doh!
.
Link:
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/women-outearn-men_n_703503.html#s133830&title=Atlanta%2C%20Georgia

Thomas Jefferson really is not a good one to quote here. Even though he is one of our founding fathers, he was also the first President to go against the constitution when he purchased the Louisiana territory from the French without Congressional approval. The constitution explicitly states that only the Congress has the authority to dispense funds from the Treasury.

Of course, several supreme court rulings and a few hundred years later, this is common practice. Congress even delegated it’s authority to the executive branch to spend money for TARP.

This is why the Americans want to go back to founding principles in the Constitution: they recognize that our government is wildly out of control regardless of the party in power.

Money from special interests, and not the will of the people, are in control now.

I hate to agree with textee…. I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone agreeing with textee…. but Thomas Jefferson opposed judicial review in Marbery vs Madison.
.
He believed that it was the president who determined what was and was not constitutional, not the Supreme Court.
.
He, actually, is not the founding father one should bring up first when it comes to the constitution.

Not so fast, eireangle: the constitution says that “other persons” are only worth 3/5 of a person, not 2/3.
.
Are you trying to sneak in another 1/15th of a person on us?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/a-smile-from-a-veil/

Haha! Thanks for the link, decon!
.
Yeah…farts and brain farts. One attacks your nose, the other your cerebrum. Both elicit the same scrunched-up-WTF-face look…

Jeez – has someone had too much coffee today?

The Constitution seems to drive you Libs crazy.

How about they read it again and a quiz is then given – if you score below 70% you get to be on Obama’s staff and move out….

“The bipartisan recitation omitted several critical passages, including the three-fifths compromise.”
Jeez – I suppose the Constitution got corrected through the amendment process – not by a simple legislative majority or shady executive rule making. The absence of the 3/5 compromise (along with prohibition, the addition of womens’ sufferage, etc.) from today’s Constitution shows it works.
We have, and continue to have many things to work out as a society. However, placing “progress”, however necessary, like clay in the hands of ever-so-well-informed elites by ignoring our principles is not the answer.

incredible

http://67.42.80.195

Great choice of descriptive wording ‘cult’, and the top comment I hit, by ‘textee’ is a great example of just that, trying to explain the ‘cultist’ mentality to make it sound like reality! good job ‘tex’ on writing lousy propaganda script!

Mistake #1:
.
“Natural law is God’s law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”"
.
Thomas Jefferson was a deist. Nature and God were one in the same concept to him. He very likely would have been an environmentalist and an atheist today. Since Darwin’s theories were not discovered for another 71 years and more complex theories such as the big bang were not known for another one hundred and seventy years or so, atheists were rare and presumed, as few except for the extreme right of Christian Churches today, that earth was created directly by a creator.
.
“Principle 3 – The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders.”
.
The strongest argument against the Bush Administration I have ever seen from a conservative.
.
“Principle 4 – Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.”
.
This is the most anti-constitutional argument made by the far right of today. It is completely against the principal of separation of church and state in the first amendment.
.
“Principle 6 – All mankind were created equal.

The Founders knew that in these three ways, all mankind are theoretically treated as:

1. Equal before God.

2. Equal before the law.

3. Equal in their rights”
.
This is a mess! First it is against both the first amendment and against every known religion since all religions believe that, before their god their own faith stands ahead of others.
.
“Principle 19 – Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained by the people.”
.
Ignoring the fact that going from farmers buying, selling, trading and transporting within a two to five mile radius of their farm made interstate commerce rare, while, today, almost nothing stays within state lines for long before it is sold, used by or transported to another state.
.
“Principle 15 – The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.”
.
Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations was written in Scotland in 1776 and was not commonly known in the US by 1789. Price and wage controls of various kinds still existed in the US when and after the constitution was written. This was a concept brought into the American conversation far later as huge Tariffs were the norm and completely against free market principals. It would as much of an anachronism as having George Washington fly on Air Force One.
.
“Principle 22 – A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men.”
.
Strongest argument against the unpopular Bush tax break for the wealthiest.
.
“Principle 23 – A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.”
.
Strongest argument for the federal department of education as well as Carter Era student loans large enough to pay for the entire tuition rather than 10% to 50%.
.
“Principle 24 – A free people will not survive unless they stay strong.

“To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” – George Washington”
.
Until World War One, the army was disbanded and sent home between wars. If you are trying to equate Washington with today’s defense spending, you are doing the equivalent in anachronisms to putting Thomas Jefferson on board of the space shuttle.
.
“Principle 25 – “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.”- Thomas Jefferson, given in his first inaugural address.”
.
Strongest argument against NAFTA.
.
“Principle 27 – The burden of debt is as destructive to human freedom as subjugation by conquest.”
.
Strongest argument to raise taxes far above the rates Bush cut them from to pre-Reagan levels.
.
“Principle 28 – The United States has a manifest destiny to eventually become a glorious example of God’s law under a restored Constitution that will inspire the entire human race.”
.
A complete denial of the facts that England and France by 1789 were democracies and were more a basis for future democracies in a non-federal parliamentary democracy than the federal and presidential system created in the US. If that was our goal, we failed.
.
“Principle 5 – All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible.

The American Founding Fathers considered the existence of the Creator as the most fundamental premise underlying all self-evident truth. They felt a person who boasted he or she was an atheist had just simply failed to apply his or her divine capacity for reason and observation.”
.
Completely unconstitutional under the first amendment.
.
IOW: you’ve got a very distorted revisionist view of the constitution which would have left our founding fathers totally dumbfounded and disgusted.

Psychiatric Meltdown, except for one out of three appellate court decisions, HCR was considered 100% constitutional.
.
“Imagine my foot shoved deep in my mouth”.
.
Fixed it for ya!

Thank you liberalmeltdown for posting this to enlighten our progressive friends who do without any doubt in my mind not only despise, but want to shred our Constitution.

You are referring to adapting the constitution by amendment not by judicial decision, correct?

Threw or duped? Hmm. Either way he may be two steps ahead of us.

I happen to know a little but about this: The Constitution says: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” No federal official is permitted to spend money that has not been appropriated.
.
As the law has developed, there is now a statutory prohibition also against obligating money not already appropriated. To obligate in this sense means to promise to pay, either with or without any conditions. Government contracts appropriate funds on the condition that the contractor performs the work. The oblligating of the money makes it available to pay the contractor for doing the work. For a federal official to agree to pay for the work before appropriated funds are available is a federal crime. (The curious can look up the Anti-Deficiency Act.)
.
Congress funds the routine conduct of government business in appropriations acts. Those are the ones that are supposed to be in place by the start of each fiscal year on October 1. This allows Congress nine months from the start of a calendar year to get the appropriating done. It routinely misses deadlines for at least some appropriations acts, and fiscal 2011 started last October 1 with not one appropriations act in place. After several stopgap bills, the House passed an omnibus appropriations act to cover the Executive branch, but the Senate was unwilling to go along with some of its provisions. The result was a continuing resolution, which despite its name has the force and effect of a statute, and which, with some provisions for special cases, allows obligation and expenditure of appropriations in 2011 at the same amounts as in 2010.
.
What Jefferson did wrong was to obligate the funds for Louisiana before Congress appropriated them. I haven’t checked, but I’m confident that at some point Congress did appropriate the money; otherwise France could not have been paid. The purpose of the Anti-Deficiency Act was to stop agencies from obligating funds and in effect forcing Congress into appropriating them after the fact. It’s an old statute, going well back into the 19th Century.
.
So yes, only Congress can make money available for expenditure by the government. But the constitutional language about appropriating is substantively neutral. It deals with the procedure for making money available to meet the government’s obligations. Whether a given obligation has been constitutionally undertaken must be resolved by reference to other provisions. Congress has to give the executive some discretion in spending the money. Otherwise it would have to pass a separate act for payment of each invoice received — which would imply the necessity of approving in advance every proposed obligation. The government issues millions of checks and executes millions of transfers of funds every years. Are they all unconstitutional if Congress fails to review each one individually?

We could use a civics class – we are in 2 undeclared wars because the vermin in Congress refuse to declare them.

We have government mandated purchase of healthcare from the demons of the insurance industry.

We bomb Yemenis in their sleep — shhhhh!

and we throw people in jail should they protest being gate raped before they board planes with cargo that hasn’t been checked.

It makes one root for the bombers… the sooner they take out the cargo hold… the sooner we achieve parity with parcels.

I hate this government…. they are evil.

“The bipartisan recitation omitted several critical passages, including the three-fifths compromise.”

.
So why do you suppose these passages were omitted, Alex? Show your wealth of knowledge on this please. Enlighten us.
.

“Tea Partyers treated it as though it were handed down from the heavens.”

.
Actually, many people, including myself do believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were “divinely” inspired. Even the highly held Thomas Jefferson said when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor”.
.

“Not as far as it goes, though as Vanity Fair”

.
Vanity Fair? You are justifying a ragazine such as Vanity Fair as your justification that reading the Constitution was a waste of time? Give me a break.
.

“The Constitution is a remarkable document, and eminently worthy of the reverence heaped on it, but it’s also flawed. Despite their genius, the framers were fallible. Law professor Sanford Levinson wrote a book called “Our Undemocratic Constitution” which points out some of these flaws-including its treatment of slavery, which the House papered over today. (A similar move was recently pulled by a publisher who planned to purge Huck Finn’s racial epithets in a forthcoming edition. It’s hard to learn from our history if we favorably revise it.)”

.
Most things created by men (or women) are flawed. Many things evolve through the creativity of men (or women) as time has passed.
.
But, let’s simply look at how the Constitution is somehow flawed. Slavery for example that you cite. Slavery was for most Americans a bad thing. Most Americans at that time did not own a slave, nor did they want or need one. If we look at the 3/5th clause, most people read this as some slight or “racist” idea against blacks. When in fact the 3/5th’s clause actually helped to END slavery in America. Yes end it.
.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting “all other persons” as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

.
The founders of the day were looking merely at counting or numbers. Had each slave being held were “counted”, the number of Representatives would have been much higher in the South due to the number of slaves being held by their masters. The 3/5ths rule allowed those who OPPOSED slavery to have a majority in the House and for delegates to the Electoral College. Had this not been written, Abraham Lincoln may not have ever been President. He would not have freed the slaves.
.
This is history. This is the truth. These are the facts.
.
By hiding this, or as was done yesterday not reading this passage in the Constitution allows people to continue to have a false impression of actually what the 3/5ths rule is all about.
.
Now tell me who was in favor of omitting this? I would love the opportunity to educate them.

Perhaps Tex likes justices like Thomas whose sole purpose it seems is to nod off except when somebody shouts “yassa massah!” in the chamber.

The vicious hatred that wild eyed Marxists like Mr. Altman have for the Constitution is stunning! Did Altman want the Congress to read parts of the Constitution that are no longer applicable because of Amendments? Congress is there to uphold the Constitution as it is now, you know, after the Amendments.

It is nice however that the democrats, instead of just going along with it, are showing their true colors. The Constitution is something that gets in the way of their agenda.

Nice quote from Thomas Jefferson. Don’t forget that he did not sign the Constitution nor did he have his hand in the Bill of Rights. ( TJ was in France as an ambassor at the time.)
One of the main thrust of the Constiutuion was LIMITATION of power. Expanding an elastic circle increases the power of the individuals (s) who do it.
Power was expanded in Rome until the Senate became a rubber stamp and Ceasar God.

Who the heck let all the trolls in?

‘Fetish’ ? Why is it you use that word? What is it with you liberal/socialists?

Fetish is a word used by metrosexual, homosexual girlie men…..

Talk like a real man….debate like a real man. Quit your hand wringing, lip quivering, knee quaking pussy behavior.

The final word: All your liberal ideas are embraced by Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy, England, California, New York, etc. Guess what girlie boy? They are all broke and on the verge of collapse. As any deadbeat…they have to borrow from someone else to pay for their excess living.

Your liberal ideas are proven losers. Step aside…go somewhere and work on your nails and makeup.

In an attempt to reason with crazy, I would like to point out that if Textee believes opposite-sex marriage is a fundamental right, then by the 14th Ammendment’s equal protection clause could be interpreted to provide grounds for same-sex marriage. On the other hand, he also includes “inter-species” which could either be seen as ridiculous or racist.
.
I’ll also point out that the Constitution says nothing about marriage, but as I implied before, you can’t reason with crazy.

Oh, hell.
Why don’t you just shut up…

“wild eyed Marxists”
.
That about ended my need to read your post. idiot speak like this is a waste of time and brain.

Rusty,
.
Ignore the first amendment to add in religious intolerance, add in economic concepts not broadly known for half a century later or more, ignore the commerce clause and you, sir, have shredded the constitution.
.
We, sir, are the preservers of the constitution and of the power of the Supreme Court to interpret it.

Know what really pisses me off?
.
Every one of these right wing crackpots think they own the Constitution!

It’s fairly ironic that you present this long list of principles and yet completely ignore the 1st Ammendment.

“Cult”? What a stupid word for people who honor our founding principles. It wasn’t that long ago that journalists love to point out that Supreme Court Justices Hugo Black and john Marshall Harlan always carried with them a copy of the US Constitution. So did Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina. His were blue, paperbound, and he often had extras to pass around. All three men were buried with a copy of the Constitution in their coffins. Add them to your Constitution “Cult”.

Jethro, you seem to know waaaay more about fetishes than everyone else here. Hmm, why is that? And the gay jokes get old after awhile. Your fellow RW trolls have been slinging the same old tired ones here again and again. Interesting how they (and you) are so obsessed with them.

What is it with you homophobic ideologues and your vivid imagination of what girlie men looks like? Reminds me of the lumber jack sketch from Monty Python.
.
So what you’re saying is that you had enough of liberals fondling Liberty – we should step aside and let you real men skull frack her?
.
This mental circle jerk of machismo between ideologues is like watching some dumb@ss figuring out how to keep the microwave on for a youtube video cooking his junk.
.
Let me know when you’re done making 8′s on the constitution like a dog that didn’t get its poop done right.
.
Between you and proudcapitalist the circle isn’t completed until one of you starts ranting about how liberals are fascists too. So much dumb is always better than coffee in the morning.

It would be nice if the honored it by being there instead of just phoning it in. That’s why it’s theatre. if they we’re all there beathing their chests at the same time I’d think they at least showed some effort, but this is theatre for people such as yourself.

1) Anyone who disagrees with you is “girlie” or feminine? Seems someone isn’t too comfortable with themselves.
.
2) Do you like boobs? I do. They are awesome. You might even say I have a boob fetish. Am I a “homosexual girlie [man]” for having a boob fetish?

Well, they lay claim to Jesus, the flag, fries and whatever. But legislate is such a bummer.
.
Now liberals don’t even have the constitution. Yet I’m the one fighting for some unknown idjut to call me a marxist, while that person is comfortable selling out our political system to the highest bidder because corporations are people just like you and I.

“fetish
a : an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence b : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : prepossession c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression
2
: a rite or cult of fetish worshipers
3
: fixation”
.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetish
.
It a word frequently used by psychologists and psychiatrists, Jeff.
.
After they finish letting you use the computer at the mental hospital, you can ask you psychiatrist about this.
.
“All your liberal ideas are embraced by Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy, England, California, New York, etc.”
.
“10 states in big financial trouble

In my decade of taxes post yesterday, I threw in a bonus comment on state fiscal concerns.

Today, in her Tax Loopholes blog, Diane Kennedy listed the 10 states she says are the most dangerous to live in right now, at least fiscally-speaking. They are:

* California
* Oklahoma
* Arizona
* Illinois
* Hawaii
* New Jersey
* New York
* Nevada
* Colorado
* Michigan”
.
http://dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com/dont_mess_with_taxes/2010/01/10-states-in-big-financial-trouble-1.html
.
Oklahoma, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado are your idea of blue states?
.
How about:
.
Germany
.
Sweden
.
Norway
.
Denmark
.
The Netherlands
.
Those are all countries faring far better during this recession than the US is without fiscal problems.
.
Apparently you have a fetish about governments which are useful and ignore that right wing states are, also, on the list of states with fiscal problems and that many socialistic countries of Europe are doing just fine.

Obviously Textee has a bit of a fetish over “non-traditional” sex, but even a fool can speak the truth and he is actually asking the right question. We’re having a debate in America over whether our founding documents were intended to be objectively interpreted and applied as the law of the land.

In the opinion of Alex Altman those who believe that the Founders intended their words to be read and understood by ordinary Americans, and interpreted literally by the judiciary, comprise a “Cult of the Constitution.” Alarmingly, this scary Cult appears to be “ballooning” and Altman energetically chastises these fetishizing cudgel wielding originalists.

You see, Mr. Altman, along with the rest of the American Left, believes that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are antiquated and irrelevant impediments to the proper practice of modern governance. Presumably, if we had a totalitarian state at the moment and President Obama had a completely free hand and unlimited resources to enact every policy favored by the Left, all would be well.

Given the unending string of expensive ineffective permanently entrenched government bureaucracies and dysfunctional entitlement programs that the Left has saddled us with, it shouldn’t come as surprise that some of us don’t agree. Under the Obama administration we have seen the most egregious abuse of the American political process since FDR bravely demonstrated his reverence for the Constitution by attempting to pack the Supreme Court.

Altman raises a fascinating point when he states that “the problem with treating the Constitution like a living document is that there will never be agreement about how it should evolve, and because it’s too messy to make those determinations, it must stay static.” This is the red herring at the root of the Left’s argument as well as that argument’s Achilles Heel.

The Founders made it difficult to change the Constitution on purpose, and they were right to do so. The very nature of the founding documents is that they define the people’s rights and set intentionally strict limits on the extent and character of governmental power. Anyone who has researched the Constitution at all will tell you that one of the primary fears that directed the founders was their concern that the powers of the federal government would be wildly and recklessly expanded.

Altman comments, “the notion that our governing document should never evolve has always struck me as mildly insane.” I think that’s what they call a Straw Man argument because not many people have the notion that the Constitution should never change. It’s not impossible for America to amend its Constitution, we’ve done it before and we may agree to do so again in the future.

The Constitution was intended to be and still is the law of the land. It has a defined process for “evolving” but most Americans don’t support any change at this time. We want to see it honored, not fixed.

The problem for the American Left is that they can’t either change the Constitution, or to live comfortably within it’s clearly stated and readily interpreted limits. For all their sound and fury, the hard core progressive only represents 15% – 20% of the population. That’s the hard reality, and their popularity is dropping like a stone as they continue to alienate the citizenry.

So Altman and the rest of the sycophant leftwing media are attempting to demonize average American citizens who are overwhelmingly fond and respectful of our Constitution. Good thinking guys, keep it up.

The Left is faced with a very unpleasant reality: they are and increasingly will be in the minority. They lost the last election big-time, and they are going to lose the next one even more severely. They got as far as they by hiding their progressive socialist agenda, but increasingly the mask is off.

In the last two years, the majority of the American people have gotten a glimpse of what the progressive social democrat liberal left is really all about. And we’re not buying it.

The Constitution is the cornerstone by which we live in this country. When the Founding Fathers broke from England, they did so for a reason. They chafed under British rule and desired to live their lives differently. They chose not to live under a monarchy, but under a democratic society whereby they were not dictated to, but, had the choice of popular vote to determine how they wanted to live their lives. The Constitution was based upon Common Sense, ( read Thomas Paine’s treatise on the subject ), not the selfish agendas of one or a few people, like the King of England and Parlament. It was deliberately structured so that the common man would have a say in matters that affected him or her personally.
The Founding Fathers also realized that the Constitution would need interpretation as times and social attitudes changed and allowed for that with the inclusion of Admendments. After all, they were experiencing changing times all their lives up until that point and to assume that no other changes would occur in their lifetime would be foolish, indeed. I sincerely doubt the country was founded by fools.
The mere fact that the original Constitution is intact after 2 Centuries is testimony to it’s design and structure by some of the wisest men on the face of the earth at that time. And still it stands. Yes, it is under constant interpretation and misinterpretation. The misinterpretation is done deliberately to undermine the foundation of the country for personal, political , prejudicial or greedy agendas. But even so, it survives and continues to be the standard by which we rule ourselves, not by which someone else rules us. And that, is the whole reason it exists. So we can make our own decisions.
Put yourselves in the shoes of the Founding Fathers. Study what was happening at the time and the social and political issues of the day. Read the history and decide for yourselves.

Rickets,
.
Please explain how having two undeclared war by Bush was not a risk to our separation of powers while an added income tax for people who do not buy health care is likely to make Obama into a Roman Emperor?
.
Please explain how the PATRIOT Act was not a risk of making Bush into an Emperor?

“How about:
.
Germany
.
Sweden
.
Norway
.
Denmark
.
The Netherlands”
.
The hint is of course – domestic industry. All are doing fairly well because they didn’t sell out their manufacturing industry to China. Their taxes are relative high, living standard excellent, some of them have socialized medicine, others have regulated non for profit insurance.
.
It’s so easy to throw the socialist word around without knowing anything about it. It’s like saying Europe. Yet Europe is wildly different from country to country.

They are all broke and on the verge of collapse.

yes because all of america’s enormous mountain of debt doesn’t count for anything right? the US has borrowed more money than most nations out there.. and if the dollar wasn’t the default currency of the world or if major lenders like china decided to ask for their millions to be payed back, the US would be light years worse off than countries like spain, portugal, and i guess california according to your geographical standards. Oh and americans should also be super proud that their influence/grasp/monetarily binding/exploitive ways in the oil industry have also played a big part in that.
.
and why do you feel the need to be so unnecessarily abusive? and why does your abuse sound like it’s coming from a high school athletics coach??

Gavel envy.

dear god if i ever build a time machine, i’m going to bring the founding fathers back and see what they f*cking think. IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO SETTLE IT I’VE DECIDED.

What’s interesting is what the author cut out with the “…” in the quote — which is:

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions.”

We can also look to the last sentence of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom for guidance on the attitude of the founding fathers, specifically Thomas Jefferson since he was the primary author of that document:

“And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”

When we narrow the protections of the Constitution without going through the process of amending the Constitution, we are not acting in the enlightened way Jefferson envisioned but are succumbing to the most immoral impulses of Governments.

The narrowing of the interpretations of the protections of the Constitution are ripe on both sides of the political spectrum. Far too much activity is regulated as “interstate commerce” when it clearly isn’t (from saying whether you can grow your own chicken feed or marijuana…never mind strained arguments over healthcare); or Congress impinging on the separation between state and federal responsibilities by requiring states to waive their self-determination in exchange for money (such as the 55mph speed limit, or 0.08 drunk driving requirements); or considering DUI and seatbelt checkpoints as “reasonable” seizures.

I am not a libertarian. I do lean right of center, but I also believe in a Government providing a broad range of services (parks, public utilities, etc). If you want to provide universal healthcare, amend the Constitution to clearly allow it. While I don’t like many of the specifics of ObamaCare — I believe there are much more efficient ways to achieve the goal of assuring every citizen can afford proper healthcare (such as high deductible + medical savings programs combined with government programs to backstop chronic and expensive health care needs).

But hey, I’ll be dismissed as some Tea Party crank by left wingers who’ll accuse those of us with genuine concerns over the “living document” school of thought as not understanding history and the law. Even if I can cite documents, like the Virginia statute, that 95% of the lefties posting here never heard of. It’s a “living document” to the extent that the People — through the legislatures — can sculpt the Constitution like a bonsai tree to meet today’s needs and change as our collective understanding of the role and function of Government change. It is not a “living document” as liberals — and frankly most so-called conservatives — wish it to be, which is a judicial Rorschach Test where it you’re allowed to see what you want to see in it.

Hmmmm…. the issue is not how irrelevant this comment is, but how foolishly people agree with it.

@polarisjoe – no, they are not assuming adapting via the ammendment process, they are assuming adapting via the Supreme Court common law process.

I’m all for the constitution being foremost and up front. It’s a milestone in human history. It’s a document that outlines individual rights against its own government.
.
But it does make me sad when that becomes the kind of theatre we see now. Just like Christianity was coopted by the religious right.
.
The constitution does not hold some ancient secret in how we can avoid the next crisis, nor does entertain the notion of right or left policies. It’s a document that gives me certain rights that cannot be taken away by anyone else, especially our government.
.
To contextualize it and make it some kind of carte blanche to hide behind for this kind of political theatre is no different than mentioning 9/11 over and over for some kind of immunity against critique.
.
This is just a ridiculous form of intimidation; if anyone dare call this theatre they show their true color and ‘hate’ the constitution, which in extension means hate the country.
.
And to me that’s dry humping common sense and an insult even to the people who would entertain such a notion.

Another right wing website has posted a link to the swamp. Palin’s a wh0re. Limbaugh can’t sport wood without viagra. O’Donnel IS a witch. Boehner cries like a girl. yo mama.

We could use a civics class – we are in 2 undeclared wars because the vermin in Congress refuse to declare them.
.
.
.
and we throw people in jail should they protest being gate raped before they board planes with cargo that hasn’t been checked.

So if we declare the wars, they would be ok then? Who do we declare them against? Certainly not Iraq or Afghanistan, seeing as those “governments” (if you could call them that) are somewhat on our side. You need a sovreign nation to declare war against. Nevermind that they are a holdover from the last administration; are the Republican-led congresses vermin too?
.
The TSA was created as part of Homeland Security. Guess who started that?

You forgot a few.
.
Glenn Beck is a lying sack of crap who only wants to turn a buck.
.
George Soros is a nice guy
.
Obama will be easily re-elected.
.
I would also add: Palin is unfit to President

Oh wait, some of those might be true.

>Freedom of speech and press apply to phone calls, texts,
>emails, etc even though those devices did not exist, for
>example.

The protections of the rights of the People provided by the Constitution should always be interpreted by the courts most broadly to new technologies; while the restrictions on the Government should be interpreted most narrowly.

In that model, clearly phone calls, texts, emails, blogs, websites and such should enjoy the protection of being “speech” and “press.”

And also be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

However, should the Government be allowed to use technology to make it easier for them to expand the number of searches and seizures they perform? No — the Judiciary’s responsibility is to constrain them when the other branches do not. Perhaps the clearest example of this is CALEA — an act that whose primary sponsor was Patrick Leahy. CALEA built the infrastructure that George Bush later abused; had CALEA not paid for the telephone infrastructure to be updated (and mandated all new purchases comply) to allow extremely easy wiretaps, Bush would’ve never been able to do widespread eavesdropping. Before CALEA a wiretap required cooperation with the telephone company to physically wire or program a tap; after CALEA agencies simply punch in the codes themselves and provide the phone company with documentation afterwards. What technology allowed the government to remotely tap any phone at will does not mean the Constitution allows them such broad allowance — it should have remained restricted in ways that meant while possible that such taps required sufficient amount of work to cause pause whether it really should be done.

Likewise, while our text messages enabled by technology should enjoy protections, it does not mean it’s right that police can now compile databases of where we have been when by simply recording license plates as they pass cameras and storing that information permanently in databases. Changes in technology should ALWAYS be interpreted in favor of public rights and against government intrusion.

>Taking general concepts and applying them to modern
>reality is not a simple process nor one that Democrats,
>Liberals, Progressives and Social Democrats take lightly.

Yeah, they do take it likely. Just like the right wing. Most people active in politics find it inconvenient to develop broad coalitions and go through the formal process of amending the constitution.

They prefer instead to believe it to a Rorschach Test, that one can see in it whatever one wishes to see in it today.

Sacred, got link? Maybe everyone here can go there and troll them? Actually, are RW links why the trolls are so heavy this week?

There is no God. This site is run by socialists and is intended for thoughtful discussion by socialists, but I still welcome the delegation from Storm Front. The Tea Party is composed entirely of aging racists with penis envy.

I liked Thomas Jefferson’s quote, but one has to ask if the current status quo of endless deficits and endless wars are in tune with the “progress of the human mind”. It would seem to me that Ron Paul-type constitutionalism would fix most of the problems that we have today.

I also think that Alex Altman is a bit disingenuous, because during his term, Thomas Jefferson was an adherent to strict constitutionalism against Alexander Hamilton-type Federalists of his day.

BTW I blame Alexander Hamilton for our gigantic national debt, crony capitalism, and a money printing Federal Reserve.

Heil comrade, you are so right.

Hey, I did not support the extension of power by Bush nor his fiscal insanity.

The constitution ‘evolution’ of the constition renders it irrelevant – it means whatever we want it to mean, and so it means nothing. If you don’t like what it says, change it, but you can’t ignore it, and you certainly can’t pretend it says something else.

Any congressman/woman who has to read the Constitution now should never have been elected. Even AFTER being sworn in “to protect the Constitution…” the time has long since passed. I am not required to KNOW the Constitution (as they ARE) but I even carry a copy of one around with me.

The interpretations MAY vary on SOME clauses, but knowledge of EVERY one of the Constitution’s AND the Amendments clauses should be a MUST prior to even RUNNING for office.

It’s a little late in the day now.

deconstructiva, everytime we get a flock of the mindless, ignorant parrots…it’s from a link. The only hope our great nation has is follow the lead of Europe. We look to them for guidance. We lack the ability to make decisions for ourselves. The sooner we let the UN take over, the better off we will be.

Way to totally misrepresent Jefferson. Jefferson also believed that, in fact, our rights were derived from “above,” and that governmental systems should not be changed whimsically. But this is where liberal idiots like Altman falter, in the arena of foundational principles and their implications. Jefferson and his peers carefully thought out the implications and long term effects of their principles. This is why in fact a key principle of the Magna Carta can be found…that of property rights.
Even greater than the danger of “fetishizing” the constitution is the return to a cilvilized tyranny led by people such as Altman, Chavez and Obamarx who believe they can decide what is best for the rest of us on a whim. Obamacare is the finest example of civilized tyranny we have seen since the Constitution was written.

“cilvilized tyranny led by people such as Altman, Chavez and Obamarx who believe they can decide what is best for the rest of us on a whim”
.
This from the crowd who want more religion in politics. Talk about chaining a totalitarian anchor to our political system.

WOW, the title of the article is pretty denegrating of those who respect and support the Consitution. It is also pretty disrespectful.
I don’t know about the Constitution being inspired by God or not, however, with a few exceptions, no man by himself could come up with all of its content.
It has always been a question for me why we had a few things in it that are quite disturbing.
Anyway, the proof that it is an outsdanding document is what we see in the USA. To the degree that we endeavor to be faithful to it, we do have a country that is the envy of the world, to the extent that we move away from it, we become just like all the socialist countries of this world.

What, Social Security isn’t the greatest tyranny ever imposed? Or the 16th Amendment? Or the Federal Highway System™? After all, that Evil Socialist Eisenhower seized all that farmland at gunpoint in the ‘50’s to build it.

It doesn’t matter where President Obama was born. HE is the only one that can lead us. His first term is merely the warmup for what is to come next. We WILL become a workers paradise. We WILL throw off the shackles of an antiquated religious tyranny. Palin, Gingrich, Huckleberry and McCain are all just a part of the plan. By putting them in the forefront of the dying republican party we have presented ourselves as the only viable alternative.

I don’t know about the Constitution being inspired by God or not, however, with a few exceptions, no man by himself could come up with all of its content.

You’re totally right. A group of men came up with all it’s content.

Me thinks our usual gaggle of liberal trolls are going to have a busy day with this post by Altman, TIME.com’s resident anti-Constitutionalist representing the lame stream media.
.
I love it!!
.
Enjoy!!

This article is poor, and it is disappointing that so few liberals have called him out on it. Just because he took a few swipes at Republicans should mean he gets a pass for this garbage.
“the notion that our governing document should never evolve has always struck me as mildly insane” is a straw man, not held by any significant population in this debate. The sides are:
1. The Constitution should adapt by the ammendment process.
2. The Constitution should adapt by Supreme Court “interpretation” – ie. a common law process.
The consitutionalists believe in the ammendment process. The “living document” theorists do not because, for example, the process is too unwieldy.

Thomas Jefferson is not the person you want to quote here either, since he believed in the ammendment process.

I do agree that whitewashing in the reading was a disservice. In particular reading the 3/5 compromise is an opportunity to address the common misconception that the Constitution considered slaves to be 3/5 of a person. In reality slaves were not considered persons at all – they had no vote. The question was whether owners would be given additional votes for the slaves they owned – ie that a slave owner received 3 additional votes for every 5 slaves he owned. Granted it is no longer relevant since the 13th ammendment outlawed slavery, but it was a missed opportunity.

Personally, I see the living document theory as turning the Constitution into a fetish object that requires silly rites of appeasement like the arguments defending the health care mandate as Constitutional because it is “interstate commerce” when it isn’t. If you want the mandate, propose an ammendment since it is obviously required and stop the silly dancing around the question.

George Soros is the greatest living human being today. His great leadership has helped to mold Obama into the man he is today. By following his lead, we will all be able to live without pain and hardship for generations to come!

You do understand that Hamilton was actually one of the authors of said Constitution, don’t you? In fact, the Federalists were the ones who were for ratifying this document. It was the Anti-Federalists who fought against ratification.

So, if we follow the logic of the originalists, then Hamilton is in the right, and not Jefferson. Then again, both felt that they had to do what they did to move the nation forward, and that is what it’s all about.

If Jefferson was a strict contructionalist, then we would not have had the Louisiana Purchase, and we would have been the poorer for it. If Hamilton didn’t create the Bank of the United States when he did, then American enterprise would have had a faulty beginning, and it would have delayed our progress as a nation.

Of course, I know that I’m just p***ing in the wind with the likes of you, but I’m currently snowed in and have too much time on my hands.

It beats shoveling snow.

@deconstructiva, SS is certainly not what the left says it is. I guess that reminds me of what Reagan once said: “It is not that liberals are ignorant, it is that they know so much that isn’t so!”

SS and medicare, for those who care to check, is one of those socialistic things implemented to re-distribute income. I have checked recently a summary of what I have put in into SS and medicare and it is obvious I will never get back what I have put in.

If that money had been deposited into savings account, I would have much more resources than I will ever get back from the retirement and medicare benefits. People, take a look at your own numbers, and will find that to be true. Again, if the money that went into SS and medicare had been deposited into a savings account, my retirement resources would be such that I would enjoy a comfortable life for all my retirement years. That is not the case with what is projected to be my monthly pay when retirement comes.

By the way, look at the average years people live and find out that certainly SS does not pay back what it takes in.

Me thinks

Hit your daily quota so soon?

Inspired by God? How many constitution do you count in the years before it going back to Gods chosen people in Middle East?
.
If there ever was a divinly inspired constitution that granted so many rights to every one of us it would have been around the time God commonly spoke with men.

George Soros. The same number of letters as Jesus Christ. Coincidence? I think not.

Let me know when we set up the re-education camps! The trolls don’t know it, but we know where they live, and guess who are the first to be invited!

“SS and medicare, for those who care to check, is one of those socialistic things implemented to re-distribute income. I have checked recently a summary of what I have put in into SS and medicare and it is obvious I will never get back what I have put in.”
.
You’re so right. It’s all meant as a way to take peoples money away and feed those stupid socialist old people.
.
We should just reinstitute the poor house for old folks who don’t have the savvy to invest money for their retirement.
.
Being a mensch isn’t a socialist plot to take away something from you that you would never have the charity to give if these folks were eating cat food in the street.
.
Social Darwinism isn’t the pinnacle of a American exceptional empire – it would be a stain on everything we pretend to be human.

Thank you mnemos1 for saying something that makes sense in the midst of so much non-sense! Your comment is so clear that it does not need any further addition.

hippooath, do you have any idea how many tablets God would have needed to inscribe the constitution on? Noah would have needed a whole fleet of those motorized wheelchairs the right rips off medicare for to even transport them down Mount Doom.

‘Tis funny that the trolls in criticizing Alex Altman’s use of the terms “cult” and “fetish”, are proving his point. It may seem insulting to them, but, if the shoe fits….

George Soros. The same number of letters as Jesus Christ. Coincidence? I think not.

This can only mean one thing; George Soros is the risne Lord! All hail our lord and savior, George Soros! Save us from those greedy, capitalist pigs, the Republicans and their teabagger minions.

Amen.

Actually the right wing trolls are the ones going crazy here.

Mount doom, thats awesome. One wheelchair to rule them all.

Thanks sacredh, I would like to join this conversation to say that now thanks to sacredh I understand the greatness of Obama, Pelosi and Reid!
Yes, with unemployment under 5%, our deficits having been zeroed and our debt being on decline, it is estimated that will be down to less than 1T in just a few years, and the markets are just booming (DOJ over 15000, NASDAQ over 6000 and S&P500 over 3000). Why is it that we didn’t have people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid before? Our pains and griefs would have left us much earlier!!!!

We are enjoying it!!!!!!!!

join us!!!!!

It amazes me that the right thinks that electing Boehner as the Speaker of the House was THEIR idea. He is our dream speaker. He’s an emotionally challenged drunk that cries when he can’t twist off the cap of a beer bottle. Their idea. Hilarious.

Mr Altman also loves to quote Jefferson, and what was meant by his words;
.

“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment…But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.”

.
But on the “official” site for Thomas Jefferson, this is what is referenced, and Mr Altman left out of the context for the Jefferson quote. http://www.monticello.org/search/monticello_search/Some%20men%20look%20at%20constitutions%20with%20sanctimonious%20reverence,%20and%20deem%20them%20like%20the%20ark%20of%20the%20covenant
.

“I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind”.

.
Where did you get your quote from Mr Altman. I would be curious to read again from that source the quote you have made? Would you mind providing that source?

You’re welcome fandaelis. It’s cold, snowy and miserable here. It took me almost an hour to drive the 8 and 1/2 miles home from work last night. I needed a little fun this morning.

And you also, no doubt, reject American Exceptionalism! Why are you threatened by interest in the Constitutuion? I assume you’d like more income redistribution also.

Re your article…You say:
1. “But the notion that our governing document should never evolve has always struck me as mildly insane”. Are you aware of the amendment process? Your comment strikes me “as mildly stupid”.

2.”Unless Tea Party Republicans are willing to stand proud and announce that they adore and revere the whole Constitution as written, except for the First, 14, 16th, and 17th amendments”. Tacky and stupid comment. I believe in traffic laws; I don’t like to be restricted to 75 MPH on wide open, deserted western interstates.

3. Your closing quote of Jefferson….It is too easy to conclude that Jefferson was recognizing the future need to amend the document; he uses the “amendment” word. You are a lightweight for so obviously defeating your own argument.

You get a “D” on this paper, having completed the assignment but poorly.

The constitution protects us from successive administrations imposing their omnipotent will on us. The government must respect the limit of its powers; it cannot require me to eat a balanced diet, albeit it may have the power to tax us all and give us one in the name of the general welfare.

@hippooath, have you checked the amount of money you have put in into SS and medicare?

Considering the people’s average life do yout think people get back in retirement benefits and medicare what they put in???

“The consitutionalists believe in the ammendment process. The “living document” theorists do not because, for example, the process is too unwieldy.”
.
Anytime now someone will show an example of this instead of just saying it’s so.
.
The democratic party, nor anyone of us turned the whole constutition into a 25 cent tittie bar event. I’m fine with it as is. Read it out loud, have anyone proposing a bill find the part of the consitution that allows it.
.
Continue the theatre. But legislate. Move the process forward. Come up with policies.
.
Otherwise this is just another device to hide the fact that there are no ideas.
.
Only an agenda of regression and repeal. Status qoue and stalemate.
.
Have a country singer make it into a song – and have em sing it with a evangelical choire. Do it all. Have Fox make a episode of 24 where Baur torture the netherlord on the floor of the house and than rip its skull off while reading the constitution. Make any spectacle anyone possible want as long as someone with ideas moves this country forward out of the crisis.
.
Here’s the thing. The pledge including this theatre proclaims that nothing will change. It’s a pledge to go back to pre 2006 mentality and policy.
.
No amount of constitution will ever change that much fail.
.
That is why ideologues need this event to be about the evil liberals spitting on the constitution because they’re anti-american. That’s the basic hyperbole.

Thanks @newfreedomblog, this shows the strategy of the left, find quotes, even if you will leave out important parts, that will back your point of view! It is certainly what Altman has done!

Very well said.

The author has it all wrong. Originalists wouldn’t argue that the founding document “shouldn’t evolve.” We merely think that chages should be made through the amendment process as laid out in the constitution! Distorition through juduicial fiat and regulatory overreach are innappropriate.

@hippooath, why new ideas? We have some of the best ideas right now! Look how wonderful we are doing with Pelosi, Reid and Obama!
Why should we need to change that? Let us see:
unemployment is under 5%,
We have no deficits,
And the debt is decreasing rapidly.

Yes, let us continue to have some these great ideas made into law!!!

Perhaps if jerks like him (as well as Obama et. al) didn’t treat the constitution as a list of suggestions rather than what it is: the law of the land, maybe they wouldn’t see people making a point of reading it and/or expressing which part of the constitution a law is based on.

Obviously, the GOP leadership is doing a bit of theater, but jerks like Alex, by disrespecting the law of the land, have brought this on themselves.

No, the constitution wasn’t perfect. We get that, but why do people like you have to be opposed to ANYTHING traditional? Is that the “cool” and “learned” and “brave” thing to do? What would take guts is someone like Alex to say to his snobby elitist friends, “I know the constitution isn’t perfect, but it has kept this nation together, kept people mostly civil, and allowed us to grow as a nation.” No, he’s too small a person to actually say anything brave like that among his elitist “friends” on the left. Deviate from the party line and you’ll find out how shallow those friends are.

Like it or not, the constitution IS the law of the land and if you go about undermining it too much to achieve what you think should be, you pretty well nullify it. That might be fine for you until the time that those who don’t agree with you are easily able to ignore it to mold the nation in their image.

That’s what these people don’t get. It is there for THEIR protection as well, lest they be on the losing end of a tyrannical majority.
—
I don’t pray to the constitution, however, I, unlike Alex and many on the left, respect that it has kept our country safe and sane for over 200 years and it has allowed for us to mature as a nation. Therefore, changes to the laws should follow it and if the country decides that the constitution needs to clarify or handle a circumstance or idea better, then they need to go about changing it.

Otherwise, what else do we have to base laws on? The will of a majority (or vocal minority) at any given time?

You are welcome, fandaelis. The … part of Altman’s quote is where I found the part he chose to leave out.
.
This is just an example of how people, more importantly progressives I have found in my travels love to distort history by removing the parts of our history which do not justify their arguments. Meaning, taking someone’s full quote out of context.
.
Not really unlike how our children and grandchildren today are being taught history, not with the actual documents, but with the interpretations of liberal historians.
.
Anyone, more specifically our children should be allowed to question simply, “why”. Our education system is broken because people attempt to spoon feed them the answers. They do this so they can merely pass achievement tests rather than truly educating our children with the truth in it’s entirety. (Job security for Teachers). When you do not let people ask “why”, we lose the opportunity to learn from our past mistakes. We lose our history and more importantly the lessons we learn from history.
.
Not until we take back our schools from the progressives and liberals like William Ayers’ of the world shall our children once again excel, and continue the great tradition of being the exceptional country of this world.

“Otherwise, what else do we have to base laws on?”
.
Corporate interests and profit margins?

Yes, that’s what it is all based on.

Are you foolish enough to believe that your hero, Obama, doesn’t reward his corporate sponsors?

Yes, back in the 1700s, there were big corporations like GE, GM, etc.

Is your life so pitiful that you have to be angry at what others are making?

Well, after reading many comments here now I see that some have continually developed sarcastic ways of answering questions in order to appear more reasonable and intelligent than others. They use sarcasm to sound “above the ignorant and stupid crowd!”
Well, no matter how smart and intelligent they think they are, truth and facts will stand.
And truth and facts are unchangeable!

For those with true convictions and with no corrupt intentions, don’t be intimidated by the “greater than thou crowd!”

Who is your “corporate master”, sacreh. Oh that’s right, you work for the government.
.
Hmmmmmm

“Who is your “corporate master”, sacreh. Oh that’s right, you work for the government.
.
Hmmmmmm”
.
The government is not a corporation. The governments role is defined in the constitution. Corporations are not mentioned at all. But I can see how you confuse them so easily.

And a good master they are too. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I guess I am a slow thinker! After reading several comments and replies, which, at times, I found difficult to understand what was the point made I finally came to this conclusion:

Now I see that some have continually developed sarcastic ways of making comments and answering questions in order to appear more reasonable and intelligent than others. They use sarcasm to sound “above the ignorant and stupid crowd!”
Well, no matter how smart and intelligent you think you are, truth and facts will stand.
And truth and facts are unchangeable!

For those with true convictions and with no corrupt intentions, don’t be intimidated by the “greater than thou crowd!”

ps.: I also use sarcasm but the point I make when using them is pretty clear. It is not subtle!

Of course he does. That’s why the whole thing about socialist is a bunch of garbage. I don’t want any money in our political system. It’s no less than bribery. But it’s clear that this theatre on display have convinced enough people that the current house is letting the American peoples drive the golf cart.
.
A year from now It’ll be interesting to see the hysterical screeches in its defense when the same old samo rules the day. Sanse the virtious dry humping of the sacred constitution.

… Also, my sarcasm is not used to denigrate anyone! It is used to make the point I am making the clearest possible!

“Are you foolish enough to believe that your hero, Obama, doesn’t reward his corporate sponsors?”
.
No. I’m very disappointed in Obama. He bows far too much to the corporations that run this country.
.
“Is your life so pitiful that you have to be angry at what others are making?”
.
Not at all. I think I have a pretty good life and I enjoy it a great deal. What does anger me is the blind devotion the right has to their corpoarte masters. It also angers me to see the once proud republicans support half-witted media stars that are taking them for a ride. It also angers me to see a near worship of those that are looting the country for their own persoanl gain and calling it patriotism.
.
Now who is foolish?

The preamble begins WE THE PEOPLE………so I don’t apologize to you for taking ownership in spirit to the constitution.

The likes of you do not even piss me off…..to steal your phrase; you and I are joint tenants as far as the constitution is concerned.

@richierichingrstlouis, at first I thought hippooath and sacredh were two middle of the road Americans disappointed with the way things are, though, not holding down to any ideology.

But from the replies they made to you, it became pretty clear they are leftwing/progressive/liberal/socialists but they don’t even know that.

“I don’t want any money in our political system,” unless, of course, that money comes from the Unions and the lawyers associations.

“What does anger me is the blind devotion the right has to their corpoarte masters.” Instead we should continue to direct our devotions towards those on the left, like Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

You got it! However, amending it is too hard (read these words as in a child whining “I can’t do it); so the next easiest thing is to conclude that every noble, humane endeavor is consitutional on its face and YOU, whoever you are in power, get to decide what is noble and humane.

I don’t think so!

“For those with true convictions and with no corrupt intentions, don’t be intimidated by the “greater than thou crowd!”
.
ps.: I also use sarcasm but the point I make when using them is pretty clear. It is not subtle!”
.
Thanks for clarifying the ironic conclusion of your flagwrapping.
.
Ideologues are not idiots. We all share the desire to eat, drink, screw, poo and sleep. Everything else is just various forms of mental masturbation. But ideologues are ignorant. They all hail their own fact based cloud while throwing everything into a neat narrow confined piled of freeze dried talking points.
.
Sarcasm isn’t the weapon used to prove that anyone is dumber…it’s to highlight just how ignorant most of the statements are.
.
This is of course doubly highlighted by anyone who drag out marxism and socialism as a lazy thought crutch as it had some kind of mental meaning beyond just how dragged through the street trashed it has been for any reason. It’s basically to ideologues what 9/11 as a word is for politicans who cant articulate their own political philosophy.
.
That’s why I use the word ideologues. That is a very narrow statement about people who pretend they have some kind of political philosophy as a base but they don’t have the integrity to live by it. They can’t clearly articulate it and they constantly reference empty phrases, talking points and worship other ignorant ideologues who knows even less about any political philosophy.
.
The easiest way to spot an ideologue is to see what they’re outraged at, the lazy way of communicate and just how patriotic they get defending their lazy incurious minds. And most of all they do not have ideas. What they have is a pool of talking points. Empty, nihilistic phrases that at one point or another have been proven wrong, but are clutched like faith jewels like they have a wider meaning.

I make no claims about being smarter or more reasonable than anyone else. In the two years that I’ve been on this site my favorite target has always been myself. I have seldom portrayed myself as being anything other than partisan and have never even made an attempt at being subtle. I have called myself a hillbilly, accident prone, laughed at my MIL and ex-MIL being sisters and I would say that calling that “greater than thou” is a gross misrepresentation.
.
I do denigrate others, but none more than myself. I am just as hard on the people (and party) I support as those that I don’t. Go look at the latest “1000 Words”. Does that look like I have sacred cows?

We live in a time of fatness and it has caused our brains to turn to jelly. Some problems the Framers faced were extremely complex. These were men who knew tyranny, dread and want, but put their life on the line to make something as bullet proof as possible so that their decedents would be free. So….. should I trust the self-less Nobel scholars of that day; or the self giving lawyers, who cheated through school and occupy their chairs today?

Btw, I’m not much of a fan of Pelosi and I can’t stand Harry Reid. If he had been running against anyone but Angle, I would have been rooting for them.

I’m in California right now, so the sunshine and warmth may have muddled my Eastern brain, but for those complaining about the Supreme Court interpreting the laws and Constitition, isn’t the role of the Supreme Court clearly spelled out in said Constitution? Co-equal third branch of government and all that?

For the most part, if you read what most of the self-avowed liberals on this site write, it is almost always framed in a sarcastic manner.
.
I have also found that this type of sarcasm is often used when the person using it is either un-educated, or not able to intelligently respond. You read those types of comments from our liberal trolls here often.
.
But, when sarcasm cannot be used or fails, they then resort to name calling. “Racist” has been a favorite of theirs for awhile now. When that fails, they gang up like a bunch of 3rd grade bullies on the playground. It usually ends with something like, “well your momma wears combat boots”. So sad.
.
But, I remain hopeful that folks like you will remain here. Will continue to challenge them. It is only then, that swamps are cleaned up, as Nancy Pelosi promised to do, but failed.
.
If you haven’t noticed yet, they get really angry and sarcastic when their little world here in the swamp is upset, and turned around. When their idea of equilibrium is challenged. I love days like today.

“@richierichingrstlouis, at first I thought hippooath and sacredh were two middle of the road Americans disappointed with the way things are, though, not holding down to any ideology.

But from the replies they made to you, it became pretty clear they are leftwing/progressive/liberal/socialists but they don’t even know that.

“I don’t want any money in our political system,” unless, of course, that money comes from the Unions and the lawyers associations.

“What does anger me is the blind devotion the right has to their corpoarte masters.” Instead we should continue to direct our devotions towards those on the left, like Obama, Pelosi and Reid.”
.
It’s clear to me now that you’re simply another ideologue that confuse political phrases and don’t invest enough time to educate yourself what they mean. The whole socialism, Reid, Pelosi is a dead give away. I don’t need any masters to form an opinion. But it’s quite frequent for ideologues such as yourself to be hysterical around personalites as most trolls do around here.
.
I won’t invest any time in removing your right to be as ignorant as you want. Thats me allowing you the full constitutional right to pretend any of the phrases you throw around have any real meaning.
.
As for money – I will write it again so it’s clear even to you and it won’t be the first time. No money. From anyone. No special interest or anything in between. All money corrupts. Without fail. Good ideas don’t need monitary sponsors. Only bad ideas do.

You are such a good little socialist-wannabe sacredh. Proud of ya!!

hey textee, climb back into your hole in Alaska with your bud Sarah.

“Fetishizing?” What a term. I’d always heard Liberals thought of everything in a sexual way… Of course, this may just be Alex’s celebration of the return of the Clintonistas. Prepare to have a bad taste in your mouth.

@sacredh, please, accept my apologies! And let me make sure you know I am not being sarcastic! After your reply I clearly do not think you think of yourself as “greather than thou!” Many of us have our views and we use what we know and who we are to communicate and promote our views. Thanks for you explanations.

@hippooath, I did apologize to sacredh after he replied to my comment on the use of sarcasm. He was reasonable and explained how he thinks.

I certainly will not apologize to you. You clearly went on using your “hollier and more intelligent than thou” mode.

Explain to me with your leftwing ideology (I guess you admit to that, don’t you?), how good were the last 4 years of liberal dominated Congress? How about the last 2 years of not only liberal dominated Congress but also the White House?

“Hey, I did not support the extension of power by Bush nor his fiscal insanity.”
.
This isn’t you per se but, I noticed how groups of people seem to vanish over time.
.
For example (in chronological order):
.
People who voted for Herbert Hoover’s first term… disappeared, fell off the face of the earth four years later.
.
The huge percent of Americans who did want the US to be involved in WWII. By the middle of the second world war, those people vanished.
.
People who did support civil rights – vanished.
.
People who wanted the US to stay in Vietnam, the “silent majority” were, by 1975 nowhere to be found.
.
People who voted for GWB in 2000 and 2004… all gone by 2010.
.
Is this why people believe in alien abductions?
.
I believe it is self serving selective memory.
.
(Once again Rick, I do not necessarily mean you.)
.
Group I suspect will next vanish: the Tea Party.
.
2014: a person asks John Boehner about the Tea Party “never heard of them”.

fandaelis, thank you for the apology but none was needed. I have way too much fun on here. I have to break out the snowblower and do my (and my neighbor’s) driveway before I go to work. Stay warm.

Thanks newfreedomblog, you might have read my comment apologizing to sacredh. I think his reply reflected that he does not think of himself as more endowed than others. Hipooath, though, continued on his mode.

It is interesting, I don’t comment on this site often. I usually make my comments on RealClearPolitics. It is interesting that even though RealClearPolitics has endeavored to move to a more neutral political position, the people that make comments there are clearly more of the conservative view. I have tried to motivate them to make comments on The Daily Beast which is definetelly a more leftwing site. I think Daily Beast is even more to the left of Swampland.

Right now we are winning the debate. What is the topic of most discussions (not in order of most discussed or most important, just a list of them): 1. The Constitution; 2. The National Debt; 3. Tax cuts to help with unemployment; 4. The Tea Party, 4. Spending cuts, 4. Health Care, that is, undoing the harm that was done, etc …

“The constitution does not hold some ancient secret in how we can avoid the next crisis, nor does entertain the notion of right or left policies.”
.
True.
.
When the right talks about the constitution, it sounds like the way believers in the paranormal speak of the Prophesies of Nostradamus.
.
It’s a strikingly important legal document, but it is not magic.

Correction: People who did NOT support civil rights.
.
Also, add it, people who thought Joseph McCarthy was a great guy.

Fanny,
.
“Yes, let us continue to have some these great ideas made into law!!”
.
The constitution is like a structure to build your government within, not a weapon to hit somebody over the head with.
.
If you hold Obama responsible for the unemployment caused by the 2007 financial meltdown, before Obama was a candidate and it’s aftermath for some unknown reason, it has nothing to do with the constitution.

I agree, fandaelis. Even I have come to appreciate some of sacredh’s “sarcasm” as just a witty and humorous libtard. For the most part I find him to be completely harmless. While he can jump on the back of the libtard horse that most ride here, he does not seem to be as vindictive. Just funny.
.
But, you are so correct in your finding more balance in most internet sites especially over the past 2 years it seems. More and more conservatives are coming onto the internet, finding these sites and making their voices heard.
.
Many sites are now becoming less ideological and hard left leaning, and becoming more fair and balanced. Even here in the swamp we have rid ourselves of the more egregious liberal shills like Karen Tumulty. She moved on not too long ago. Thank God.
.
The young, still wet behind the ears types like Altman, I have and hold hopes out for. They just need to be re-educated so that their brain washing they received in college is reversed. Klein, Tumulty, old and set in their ways, not so much.
.
But, I do appreciate you stopping by, please do so more often. I for one find your comments refreshing, informative, and very challenging to those on the left here.

publius2000,

You can’t be serious that there were not Anti-federalist and Federalist elements in the early part of the republic, right?

The Hamiltonian central bank was one of the most corrupt and backward institutions of the early republic. The same can be said of the Federal Reserve. The Panic of 1819 was caused by the central bank, just as the panic of 1929 and 2008 was caused by the Fed’s loose money.

Please refer to this Rothbard work for a primer on the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian question…http://mises.org/daily/3591

Regards,

Aaron

Sacred,
.
You forgot. He’s, also, a man of color : orange.

You liberals always confuse your idea of “freedom from religion” with the First Amendment. The idea of not having a state religion, such as the Church of England, does not mean that there was to be no God in government.
.
You should be careful. One day your religion of Environmentalism will be scrubbed from government.

I’ve been waiting for anyone on the right to say that.
.
I don’t know what side of the aisle you are from, but it doesn’t really matter, but if you are, you’re the first one to indicate “joint custody” of said document.
.
But would you do me one little favor, if you are on the right?
.
Would you mind apprising them of that fact?

I think that I mentioned the other day that he is either a minority of one or an endangered species…

I was too just a few minutes ago. I looked like a snowman with AIDS. I was covered from doing the driveways with the snowblower. Btw, I won my $20 bet about Boehner crying during the swearing-in. The guy was pretty gracious about paying up. He handed me the $20 and called me a smart-assed b@stard (but he couldn’t do it without laughing).

Rusty, are you getting into that culture stuff again?

mkivela, well said; thank you.

Mr. Altman, as others have said, you confuse evolution via amendment with interpretation and stare decisis.

A) Journalism is all about context, so why does Altman give the 3/5 compromise a bad rap? It denied slave states increased representation because they themselves did not treat blacks as humans. It was a policy that helped abolitionists and slaves alike.

B) I find it appropriate Altman calls them framers of the Constitution. Originalists look at the Constitution as defining boundaries which lawmakers must stay within when crafting law. We’re not saying you should never change or make new laws, just make sure they pass muster. Altman acts as if it is square to submit to the document which laid the foundation of this country.

Speaking of “corporate personhood”, I though you might enjoy this satire video produced for a “We The Corporations” rally that is being held in D.C. on the anniversary of the Citizens Untied ruling:

Who’s God is to be in Government, then? The moment a certain God is chosen, even if it is a generic Christian God, the 1st Ammendment is broken. To even say that God is in government, and make laws based on that, is to make laws “respecting an establishment of religion”
.
To play with semantics, what does “establishment” really mean? Is it a noun, such as calling a certain denomination or church an “establishment?” Is it a form of a verb, meaning “to establish?”
.
And who is to say that even all Christians would be happy with that? Are Catholics, Mormons, etc considered “Christian?” (as some denominations, albeit on the fringe moreso, do not)

How about the self-giving ex-Governess of Alaksa, er, I mean, Alaska…

Lauren,
.
So, what happens if the government taps your phone without a warrant?
.
Well, the search and seizure in the fourth amendment does not say the word “telephone”.
.
So, without interpreting the constitution, one can find an answer.
.
Obviously none of our founding fathers thought about telephones, email, texting, sexting, blogs, websites, satellites and wiretaps.
.
So, we have to interpret.
.
I guess your idea is that the government can do absolutely no wire taps of people with probable cause until their is a specific “how the government may wiretap persons suspected of crimes” amendment.
.
Can police search your car when pulled over for a traffic violation?
.
Well, all pullovers must stop until a new amendment is made.
.
(In reality SCOTUS ruled no. The police do not reasonably expect to find additional evidence of your driving through a red light INSIDE of your car).

Patrick, it is about more than earning power. We still earn less on average. But, it is all about equality in every way.

Richie,
.
The president was a constitutional law professor for a living before he ran for the Senate.
.
Only the individual mandate on health care got questioned and it shocked people that one out of the three appellate courts wanted to overturn it because it has two strong arguments:
.
First, states require car owners to buy insurance.
.
Second, under the law all people pay 2.5% of their income or they forgo the tax by buying health insurance. This is as sound as tax deductions for buying a house, getting married, having children, opening an IRA… all of the thousands of tax incentives.
.
So, to claim that Obama does not know or care about the constitution is like saying that a lifelong theologian does not care about religion.

When did it become appropriate to insult Karen Tumulty so nastily? Another reason to ignore the bullies.

This article is a great example of why the debate over constitutionalism is so muddled. It contains several misguided ideas:

1. The “living constitution” canard. The Constitution was indeed intended to evolve. That’s why the framers included a mechanism to amend it.
2. Leaving out the offensive amendments which are no longer in effect is not the same as expurgating Huckleberry Finn.
3. Peter Wehner is not a “former Bush Administration.”

Fanny,
.
First, you mistake what is done by some or most Democrats and what liberals/progressives want.
.
Second, you do not observe that when a Republican gets big bucks from a corporation, it is tempting (but not right) for a Democrat to grab as many bucks as he can, too.
.
Liberals do not support anybody but individuals making campaign donations and that such campaign donations be limited to such small amounts that most if not all Americans can afford to reach the maximum. (One good limitation would be $100 – all of us can afford that even during the worst economy.)
.
That way a CEO and the top 50 or so executives can contribute $100 each as private individuals and not reimbursed by a corporation and 200 of the most eager union members as individuals (not as a part of the union but as individuals not reimbursed by the union) can donate to the Democrat.
.
Then let the best candidate win.

Rusty,
.
You have not been called racist at random.
.
Just two days ago you had a long, rambling article about how the city of Detroit was overrun by Mexicans and Muslims using welfare money, having huge numbers of children on welfare and committing crimes. You were wrong about their being a significant Muslim population or Mexican population inside of Detroit as they are each about 1%. You said that the mayor was a black man who called himself the Mother F’er in charge. You showed a disgusting factually false narrative that would make most members of the KKK blush.
.
There was the video you showed again and again about people singing about a black rapist coming through people’s window at night.
.
You constantly repeated Andrew Brietbart’s lie about Shirley Sherrod.
.
Of course everybody knows about the time a few years ago when you said that to fight off new immigration, there was a “sleeping white giant” ready to keep them out.
.
I mean, really!
.
Don’t play the victim with being called racist.

How can I forget, Rusty.
.
You said that you believed it was possible that the president of the United States might be the Anti-Christ.
.
Then you wish to be treated as a rational, non-racist poster and cry about it when you get put in your place.
.
Grab a tissue with Johnny Boner.

There was the video you showed again and again about people singing about a black rapist coming through people’s window at night.

Woah, now, that video (the auto-tuned on) is hilarious.

“When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.” Dred Scott v. Sandford , 60 U.S 393 (1857) (Justice Curtis dissenting).

The Dred Scott Decision has been identified as one of three precipitating events of the Civil War. Four years and 650,000 dead later, we corrected the error.

“Right now we are winning the debate.”
,
Who is winning?
.
“What is the topic of most discussions (not in order of most discussed or most important, just a list of them): 1. The Constitution;”
.
Not one valid point against judicial review established by Marbury vs Madison has been made.
.
Without finding a way to argue against Marbury vs Madison judicial review, making the constitution subject to interpretation stands.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
.
Two honest and well versed individuals can look at any document or statement and see different implications. When one opinion wins the other opinion’s supporter will accuse the winners of “re-writing” the constitution.
.
Franklin Roosevelt thought that the, then, conservative Supreme court was blind and unable to read the constitution because they saw it so differently than he and his lawyers did.
.
“2. The National Debt;”
.
Liberals are ready and willing at any time to raise taxes on the top brackets to pay off the national debt.
.
If you mean that the Tea Party solution that the deficit disappears by magic, then they are winning elections but losing the fight.
.
One step in a clear direction is that defense spending on cold war era weapons is going to decrease dramatically to attempt to balance the budget before a tax increase.
.
“3. Tax cuts to help with unemployment;”
.
Economists have known that this is a failure. Hiring people who in turn, spend 100% of their paycheck creates multiple levels of hiring while, also, working on the needed three trillion dollars of infrastructure repairs needed.
.
” 4. The Tea Party”
.
Won elections, but, with a Democratic senate never willing to cut needed programs, will be infuriated when the combined houses balloon the deficit and make cuts only to the much cherished defense budget/
.
” 4. Spending cuts,”
.
So far it is just DoD.
.
“4. Health Care, that is, undoing the harm that was done, etc …”
.
The public is against total repeal and with the Democratic Senate, it’s about as likely to be overturned as Sarah Palin is likely to become an intellectual and a Democrat.
.
What are you winning?

“Woah, now, that video (the auto-tuned on) is hilarious.”
.
Sorry, but I’m a 39 year old white guy and, in addition to seeing how it was terrible for Rusty to bring it up as the norm in the black community, I hate that kind of music.
.
Give me late 1960s through early 1980s rock or 1990s grunge music (like Nirvana) and I am happy.

No one………… NO ONE thinks the Constitution should not evolve.

That is what Article five is for!

I am so tired of people who don’t support reading things into the Constitution being labeled as ignorant morons. The constitution is the rules for the government. What good are rules if they can be “interpretted” as each party sees fit?

“Hipooath, though, continued on his mode.
.
It is interesting, I don’t comment on this site often.”
.
Maybe if you didn’t jump to unions as soon as I mentioned no money (btw it’s not exactly an original retort – its a Pavlovian reflex amongst people who want to defend the reason why ‘their’ side takes bribes) or the usual leftist/socialist garbage. You can peg me anyways to Sunday but I won’t pretend that you’re trying to find a opposing point of view if you’re to lazy to argue ideas instead of talking points. I’d love to share ideas about conservatism and liberalism as I see them as different approaches to the same classic liberal foundation but lazy rethoric usually derails all common sense.
.
Let me give you a list of a dead give away for a lazy mind; socialist, fascist (no matter if left or right use it), marxist, Obamao, unions, Europe, Socialized medicine etc. It’s not that those words don’t exist, is that they’re usually used interchangeable and in the broadest terminology. It’s like saying that Germany and France have the same government type or even share a similar health care system. It’s lazy. Just as calling me or anyone else socialist when I would never want our government to own production. Outside that you don’t have socialism.
.
Take it for what it is, if that’s a mode so be it, but if you’re going to be intellectually lazy I don’t feel like taking such laziness serious either.

Meltdown,
.
Nobody says that people of faith can not be in government.
.
It is just that things specific to any faith or specific of faith may not be done by government.
.
The presidents can, have and will continue to pray during their spare time.
.
It just means that all religions and the absence of religion are equal giving no religion, the absence of religion or any group religions any advantage.
.
It is not the the constitution attacks religion.
.
It is that the constitution states that the government can not attack a different or the lack of religion with favor or disfavor.

Sorry, but I’m a 39 year old white guy and, in addition to seeing how it was terrible for Rusty to bring it up as the norm in the black community, I hate that kind of music.

As far as bringing it up as the norm, then yeah, that is pretty ridiculous. But the auto-tuned song was also created by four white 20-somethings. I agree what happened is horrible, the song is another matter, especially since they are giving 50% of the proceedings from sales on iTunes (at one point in the top 10) to the gentleman in the video.
.
As a side note, I commented to my wife the other day that the majority of music that I listen to is actually older than me, or just as old. The most recent band I listen to on a regular basis is Sublime, and my favorite Pandora station has CCR, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and the Allman Bros as the seeds.

Amend,
.
“What good are rules if they can be “interpretted” as each party sees fit?”
.
See Marbury vs Madison, the original judicial review of 1803.
.
The one and only way to stop judicial review is to say that the government must stop anything if the constitution is unclear about it and wait 20 years for a new amendment.
.
Take the issue of if police can search a car during a pullover, as I said above.
.
Do you want the case to be hanging in the air for 20 or 30 years until their is an amendment stating which is true or to figure out from the fourth amendment if a car is like a home or ones person being searched or if it is a public place like a park which the government may search.
.
A car is like one’s home or the pocket of their clothes only to be searched with probable cause and a warrant.
.
Driving through a red light is not probable cause for anything else and, since the police can not find evidence of going through a red light inside of the car, the police may not search it unless there were other probable cause.
.
With judicial review, during those twenty to thirty years waiting for an amendment, the police would have to stop all pullovers.
.
That would awful!

“Right now we are winning the debate. What is the topic of most discussions (not in order of most discussed or most important, just a list of them): 1. The Constitution; 2. The National Debt; 3. Tax cuts to help with unemployment; 4. The Tea Party, 4. Spending cuts, 4. Health Care, that is, undoing the harm that was done, etc …”
.
I don’t know whay universe you’re coming from, but ‘winning’ a debate usually comes after you compare notes of facts, not by declaration by self.
.
What you presented here tonight is the same flurry of talking points newfreedom and gang throw out and get spanked on repeatedly. I’m not one to declare victory in posts, but it has something to do with the factual base of the presented argument. And the one who usually cannot back it up is the one who certainly don’t win any points.
.
I hate to break it to you – but while I appreciate your thoughts about the constitution, you soured your own point of view by cutting corners rethorically with the usual suspect of buzz words.
.
Unless you know where I stand as suppose to guess it because I oppose your BS, I suggest you ‘defeat’ my opinion by a greater understanding of facts.
.
And you shouldn’t marry yourself to much to newfreedom. Unless you also think Obama is the anti-christ, being nasty to other people including women to mention a few nuggest, he’s not exactly the kind of moral authority for you to harbor your conservative credentials with.

Inter-species marriage is not a constitutional right, because animals aren’t people, and aren’t provided rights (or at least the same rights) under the constitution.
.
But the Supreme Court says that corporations are people. So does that mean humans and corporations have the right to marry? Sounds like it to me!

As predicted without fail, I present sartor the magnificent and his side-kick, hippo.
.
LOL!!

“@hippooath, I did apologize to sacredh after he replied to my comment on the use of sarcasm. He was reasonable and explained how he thinks.
.
I certainly will not apologize to you. You clearly went on using your “hollier and more intelligent than thou” mode.
.
Explain to me with your leftwing ideology (I guess you admit to that, don’t you?), how good were the last 4 years of liberal dominated Congress? How about the last 2 years of not only liberal dominated Congress but also the White House?”
.
I don’t expect nor ask for an apology from anyone. Not even the nastiest of people that come in here and p!ss all over everything because they have this uncontrollable urge to mark their territory. I’ve been called worst by some really stupid people so you being lazy and calling me a leftist only insults yourself.
.
I’m on the books saying that when one party controls all the power it’s a bad thing. But even worse than that is when you and I argue over some kind of imagined fault line because that only allows people in our political system to rob the hen house.
.
I don’t think the democratic party and this administration accomplished a lot. DADT should never have been and the START treaty is a no brainer regardless who’s in power. The HC debate is probably where both you and I are in most agreement. Even conservatives know we have to do something; what exactly has to be done is always going to be the differentier. But what was done is nothing but more corporate wellfare. What I think is idiotic is the usual suspects on the right calling it socialized medicine, death panels and the destruction of our health care etc. That’s just baloney. I wish the debate would have been about cost cutting measures etc.
.
Because of this imagined fault line centrist policy turned this into another feeding ground for companies that have no incentive to cut any costs. We’re instead mandated to take their sh!tty insurance while they’re under no obligation to cut costs.
.
I personally don’t care for hyperpartisan rethoric but you do me a disservice when you pretend socialist mean something. But if you want to pin all the ills of the last 4 years on liberals, then you are one blind rat in a maze. And every single business as usual politicians thanks such blind partisanship.
.
I don’t mind a discussion about stuff we don’t agree in – or whether a is better than b, but when you go into lala land and argue sh!t that never happened and is not on the plate I’m not going to follow.
.
As far as holier than thou – I’m not smarter than anyone here. But I’m certainly not intellectually lazy.

“As predicted without fail, I present sartor the magnificent and his side-kick, hippo.
.
LOL!!”
.
Thanks Joker

“Lynyrd Skynyrd”
.
They were making music when I was a child, but, unfortunately (sometimes, like this case fortunately) NYC area radio is very corporate and would rather play the bands/acts which already sold ten million copies rather than anything new.
.
So, I head much of it in high school.
.
I left the NYC area and lived in Boston for 15 years.
.
When I came back, almost exactly the same songs were on the radio. It was like time warp.

I can’t decide which is more disturbing, deliberately re-writing history for political ends or attributing attempts to correct it to too much coffee. Either way, we get it, you watch Faux News.

Hey,
.
Nothing personal Hippo, but, the wingnuts always tell me that 53_3 was my partner in crime.
.
Was there a re-assignment at HQ without somebody telling me?
.

Do you realize that by resorting to this name calling when you disagree with something, someone, that you are the person who appears “wild eyed”. Stop channeling Rush, think for yourself.

They are too shortsighted to see that the constitution protects them as well. It is all about using all means possible to implement and make sure others abide by their worldview

Personally I’m just hoping to make the “10 Most Totally Partisan Idealogues (Ever)!” list next time it’s out. It would be, like, such an honor.

You can get your side kick gig back if you like
.
It really doesn’t take more than 1 person to counter newfreedom anyways. He fancies himself like a heavy weight, but I’ve met better trolls than that.
.
npo42 – the term is ‘evar’. It has more of a punkishness to it.
.
If I ‘evar’ made a drinking game out of ideologues countering posts with socialism/unions etc I would be plastered in no time.

Please note “agbooks” historical comments are based on the writing of his libertarian mentor, just more extremist crap.

No wonder TIME is hurting financially. They don’t have any authors capable of writing anything other than lefty propaganda. I don’t believe it would have mattered had Republicans decided to read the instruction manual for setting up a VCR to Mr Altman. He would have had a problem anyway, because his side (that does not seem to hold the constitution dear) lost miserably in November. His thirst for revenge cannot be easily quenched. But Altman, dems LOST big, the biggest defeat in over 7 decades. You won’t get over it in a month or two and I’ll never quit mentioning it. Turnabout is fair play after all, it’s what left leaning dems have been doing for quite awhile now. So common Americans probably do not sit around reading the constitution but even simple minds know right from wrong. Two examples… it is wrong to attempt to control your citizenry via a socialist takeover of our medicine and secondly it is wrong to kill unborn babies. The writer’s of the constitution would not have written it to allow for either thing and they were right to do so. An abortion in 1776 would be just as wrong as one performed in 2010. The killing of an unborn child is patently wrong on every level and in any era. Maybe an exception should be made in mr Altman’s case. You could get kathleen sebellius and barack HUSSEIN obama to ease Altman into one of those ‘comfort rooms’ that obama likes for the purpose of putting those pesky babies that just couldn’t be easily aborted/killed. sebellius could do the late term -very late term- abortion on altman in the comfort room or maybe he would just expire from sheer lefty dissapointment.

Richie,
.
The president was a constitutional law professor for a living before he ran for the Senate.
.
Only the individual mandate on health care got questioned and it shocked people that one out of the three appellate courts wanted to overturn it because it has two strong arguments:
.
First, states require car owners to buy insurance.
.
Second, under the law all people pay 2.5% of their income or they forgo the tax by buying health insurance. This is as sound as tax deductions for buying a house, getting married, having children, opening an IRA… all of the thousands of tax incentives.
.
So, to claim that Obama does not know or care about the constitution is like saying that a lifelong theologian does not care about religion.
———-
I never said Obama didn’t know about the constitution. A doctor knows about the risks of smoking or drinking, but does that mean he’ll automatically follow the rules to good health?

Really, those are your arguments?
He’s a hypocrite, first he says it is not a tax increase or penalty in order to sell it. Then for the sake of argument to the courts, they base their arguments on just that.

If you think the constitution can “coerce” people to buy something, then just say it, don’t tiptoe around it or pretend to have some other argument.

The practical matter is this: you don’t have to drive an automobile, so they aren’t coercing you to buy anything there. If you don’t choose to drive (buy the car, buy gas, etc.), you do not have to buy it. With the “reform” they put into place, you do not have a choice, you have to buy it. The commerce clause cannot force you to engage in commerce, but instead it regulates commerce that is done.

Think of it this way, I’m young and in good health, I have the means to pay my medical bills as they come.

With Obama’s “reform”, I will be required to buy a product I don’t want. Should I refuse to buy it I will be penalized for that. Should I refuse to pay the penalty for not buying something I don’t want, I could be thrown in jail.

Now, how exactly is that not a loss of personal freedom?

You say, well everyone should have that. Perhaps, perhaps not. The point is this, this is a dangerous precedent, you are twisting the constitution to allow for the government to force you to engage in a commerce activity all in the name of greater good. Where does this stop? Say you get a POTUS who is even more left of Obama, he might decide that you are required to eat only certain foods or do certain type of (exercise) activities, lest you be penalized on your taxes. The constitution has always been meant as a check on gov’t power. The notion behind our constitution is this: people should have the freedom to pursue the life they want and the government should interfere as little as possible. We were founded on the notion that generally speaking that people know better what is good for them rather than some faceless/nameless bureaucrat in Washington or some elitist who has his/her own worldview.

The point of the government is to provide for those things which we individually or as a smaller group can’t do. Such as self-defense, interstate highways, national disaster, etc. It isn’t to ensure everyone is guaranteed an arbitrary standard of life or lifestyle. It isn’t to decide what is best for us collectively.

I don’t need anyone to tell me this. The constitution isn’t a 2000 page lawyerly document. It is a short and pretty straightforward document. Similarly, the Declaration of Independence short and straightforward. I need no “tea party”, “GOP”, or talking points to tell me any of this.

Another point re: states requiring car insurance to car owners. Note that you spoke of states. Once again states. This is the domain of the states, not the federal government. The federal government has no jurisdiction over the matter. So, once again, the point is weak.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t this supposed to be a forum for commenting on the Constitution, it’s viability and meaning to American Society ? Instead the article seems to have become a focal point for a childish school yard fight between liberals and conservatives hell bent on engaging in meaningless backbiting , sniping and nit-picking. If you don’t like the other party running the country, in fact, if you don’t like the country at all, the Founding Fathers left open the provision for you to relocate somewhere else where you are happy with the current style of Government you prefer, liberal or conservative. Research the country of your choice. No one is holding you hostage in the U.S. nor beholden to it like the Brits tried to do back in 1776.

“Turnabout is fair play after all, it’s what left leaning dems have been doing for quite awhile now.”
.
I thought we voted for people to represent us, not to act like p!ssed off school kids. I’ve heard this argument before, poor excuse for behaving like idiots to me.
.
We have a new textee – he might get miffed if you move in on his niche as the crazy one.

Yes, it’s just crazy the way they care what the rules are; instead of just changing and making up the rules as we go along. Who needs rules when we’re controlling people’s lives… right?

“the notion that our governing document should never evolve has always struck me as mildly insane”

If only the founders had some way to allow changes to the Document. Maybe not a simple way, to keep it from changing every year; but some way to alter it. To “amend” it if you will.

But sadly the Constitution cannot be amended in any way, can never change, and must therefore be “interpreted” differently as the nation changes.

What? there is an Amendment Process? It’s written in the Constitution itself? So it doesn’t need to “evolve” it can be changed, by follwoing the rules as they’re written without randomly making crap up?

Naah, rules are for suckers; lets show people that the rules never mean anything… heck I’m going to quit paying my taxes. I think the tax code has “evolved” to the point where I don’t owe anything.

What? Sure you can claim the tax code is changed; but it also “evolves” doesn’t it? Or is it just the “law of the land” that gets to be ignored on a whim?

ert, your sarcasm is wonderfully humorous ! That’s one way of putting it in a way only some can understand.

Richie,
.
Speeches and press releases are not legally binding.
.
I do believe it was very disingenuous for the president to say that it was not a tax hike.
.
However, imagine this: taxes go up 0.5%.
.
Then the government gives a tax rebate of $300 per year for everybody who spends $300 per year on going to a gym.
.
Are you “coerced” into going to a gym?
.
I would say no.
.
How about if taxes go up 3%. Then you can get a tax credit for every dollar you spend on vegetables.
.
Is that government coercion?
.
How about if one did not include mortgage payments, spousal and child deductions and IRA accounts, taxes would be, say, 4% lower.
.
So, are we coerced into getting married, having children, opening an IRA account and “punished” for not doing so?
.
I’m running behind on all of the above (but intend to do all of the above). Am I like an outlaw for being not yet married? Or, is the government just giving a little hand to those who do what is most productive?
.
If you call the tax issue for health care insurance unconstitutional, some person who, unlike me, decides that they will never marry, have children, buy property or open an IRA account could go to SCOTUS and demand all of those deductions “punishing” him/her for their lawful choices and win back thousands of dollars of tax money and make those deductions illegal.
.
There was another argument: right after the revolutionary war, it was not a right to decide if you bear arms or not. One was required to – want to or not – for the national interest to have a musket and a munition in your home.
.
For health insurance, the only way not bankrupt private insurers while requiring them to take people with pre-existing conditions is to have all insured.
.
This was the primary argument.
.
I support the secondary tax argument but not the equating health insurance today with a musket in the late 1700s.

Challenge to the right:
.
One person please explain to me from the right how we can function as a nation if the Supreme Court and the appellate courts can not interpret the constitution.
.
For example, a civilian gets pulled over for speeding while driving on an army base by MPs.
.
The constitution does not mention cars.
.
The constitution does not say anything about driving.
.
So, does the ticket wait for 25 years while we have an amendment to decide if the federal government has the authority to give moving violations to civilians on federal property.
.
Should we, instead, have civilian police on military bases to enforce traffic laws?
.
Obviously, although not mentioned in the constitution, MPs may pull over and ticket civilians for breaking traffic laws on a military base.
.
Without judicial review “reinventing” the constitution, how is this resolved?
.
Crack is not mentioned in the constitution. So, should the DEA wait for a constitutional amendment before they arrest a crack dealer or should we go by “reinventing” the constitution by using the interstate commerce clause to arrest drug traffickers using the DEA?
.
Please explain what you, conservatives would do if you wanted to go by exclusively word for word what the constitution says rather than have it interpreted or “reinvented”.

Tea Party/far right response to my question of how our nation would function without judicial review and, therefore, “reinventing” the constitution:
.

.
Please note, I have met many conservatives who are bright and well informed.
.
Early this morning I ran across a white former Alabama prison guard who votes Republican and considers himself conservative.
.
We agreed on two things:
.
First (unrelated) the filibuster is the worst thing in the world unless it is your party doing the filibuster against legislation you hate, in which case it is a gift from the gods. Hence, since half the time each party loves and feels they need the filibuster, we can’t get rid of it.
.
Second, “reinventing the constitution” means an appeals court or the supreme court came to a conclusion one, personally, hates. “Following the constitution” means the opposite, as in a decision one agrees with.
.
Therefore, even though this was a conservative, he was a well informed one and clear thinking one, saying “the constitution” does not really mean liberal or conservative per se.

Dribble.

The COTUS is structured to deal with human nature, not bureauacracy: specifically the human trait of abusing delegated authority.

The objective in creating the federal government was clearly defined: to protect inalienable rights of sovereign citizens from usurpation by anyone.

Given the geopolitical context, the Founders were especially concerned about usurpation by; and tyranny of, government. They structured the federal government to have ‘natural’ checks and balances, presuming honest public servants of two Branches would prevent any third Branch from usurping authorities not delegated.

In addition, the Founders very presciently denied the federal government two very important resources: power by specifically constraining the government via the Bill of Rights; and money by specifically denying the government the power to directly tax citizens (a critical check on federal power that was foolishly and disatrously destroyed by the 16th Amendment-that fortunately can be reversed) .

The House was designed to protect the interests of the people; the Senate to protect the interests of the States. The federal judiciary was expected to prevent any laws from being enacted in violation of the strict limits delineated in the COTUS.

The 9th and 10th Amendments make if perfectly clear that the federal government is denied any authority to presume any authorities not specifically delineated in the COTUS. Most of the abominations brought about by the so-called “Commerce clause” are patently un-Constitutional violations of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The only way to restore America is to restore Constitutional governance: everthing else is illegal and immoral.

Please, then, explain what “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” meant in 1790, 1890, 1990, and 2010.

(a critical check on federal power that was foolishly and disatrously destroyed by the 16th Amendment-that fortunately can be reversed)
.
.
Most of the abominations brought about by the so-called “Commerce clause” are patently un-Constitutional violations of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The Commerce Clause – Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 – and the 16th Amendment are spelled out verbatim in the Constitution. They are part of the “Constituional governance” you highly prize. So could you clarify your position more, please? Or are you wishing to change that document to suit your needs?

“everthing else is illegal and immoral.”
.
The constitution does not cover everything legal. It’s a very good start and I think it’s one of the best documents of it’s time. Immoral?
.
We have one supreme judge saying that women don’t have equal rights. Is that a question of moral?
.
I really think we should stay clear of using legal and moral interchangeble because one persons moral is another persons immoral.
.
I don’t disagree in large with what you’re saying only that moral is really fuzzy stuff and nearly impossible to legislate.

Whether you like it or not the ideals of morals, liberty, freedom, opportunity and laws that are outlined in the Constitution all come from a Judeo-Christian background.
.
The Constitution will always be interpreted. But how can someone that doesn’t believe interpret the depth of a writer such as Jefferson? He had faults as a human, but in the writing of our founding documents, I believe that he was inspired to produce a document that has delivered millions of people from tyranny and produced the one place on earth where freedom truly is available to the common person.
.
I don’t believe that any Marxist inspired progressive would ever come close to improving the Constitution. That also goes for extremists on the right. The Constitution is not a political document; it raises humanity above the political sewer.

“Whether you like it or not the ideals of morals, liberty, freedom, opportunity and laws that are outlined in the Constitution all come from a Judeo-Christian background”
.
As I said, leave moral out of it. I think it’s perfectly natural to see fundamental rights as common sense more so than ‘moral’, Moralizing laws is not good. Sooner or later you have idiots legislating ‘sodomizing’.
.
“I don’t believe that any Marxist inspired progressive would ever come close to improving the Constitution”
.
Me neither. But then again the whole marxist dumb@ssery is only in your head and another reason why we should keep moralizing out of legislation.
.

“The Constitution is not a political document; it raises humanity above the political sewer.”
.
I couldn’t agree more. it’s a pity however that some people make it a political contest in who ‘loves’ it more.

“Me neither. But then again the whole marxist dumb@ssery is only in your head and another reason why we should keep moralizing out of legislation.”
.
If you don’t want to look around, or maybe come to California and see how Che is idolized here, and see that there are actually Marxists in our government, that’s your problem.
.
It’s not about who loves it more. It is simply that you understand that it was and still is a very unique document in the course of human history. You can’t equate is with a hopey changey speech about how the government is going to take care of you from cradle to grave if you only just vote for Barry.
.
And where do you think that the concept that fraud, rape, robbery, murder is a crime comes from there Sherlock? It comes from morals. Or, do you think that the masses just invented the ideas?
.
“Moralizing laws is not good.” What a perfectly stupid statement. We judge the crime by how horrific it is based on morals. That’s why a murderer gets a stiffer sentence than someone that steals your smart car, or more likely your Volkswagen bus.

“Sooner or later you have idiots legislating ‘sodomizing’.”
.
So, the whole Constitution of the United States comes down to sodomy for you. That’s your concern. OK.
.
And, therefore because you are obsessed with sodomy and its moral implications, you believe that morals are bad, sodomy good. Are you Homer Simpson?
.
Fundamental rights as you call them have never been granted to a nation until those moralists came along and declared that our rights come from God, not from the mind of a corrupt man. I wonder why.

“Whether you like it or not the ideals of morals, liberty, freedom, opportunity and laws that are outlined in the Constitution all come from a Judeo-Christian background.”
.
Meltdown,
.
Please tell me what part of the Judeo-Christian tradition deals with human ethics differently than an ethical thinker regarding unlawful search and seizure, for example.
.
Prior to the American Revolution, most Christian leaders were appalled by Democracy:
.
“The divine right of kings is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. According to this doctrine, since only God can judge an unjust king, the king can do no wrong. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act.

The remoter origins of the theory are rooted in the medieval idea that God had bestowed earthly power on the king, just as God had given spiritual power and authority to the Church, centering on the Pope. The immediate author of the theory was Jean Bodin, who based it on the interpretation of Roman law. With the rise of nation-states and the Protestant Reformation, the theory of divine right justified the king’s absolute authority in both political and spiritual matters. The theory came to the fore in England under the reign of James I of England (1603–1625, also James VI of Scotland 1567–1625). Louis XIV of France (1643–1715), though Catholic, strongly promoted the theory as well.”
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
.
Follow the reasoning of the time:
.
There is a god.
.
He knows all and can do all.
.
He knows who the best and the brightest are.
.
He is wiser than all humans.
.
So, choosing your own leaders was, at that time, considered heresy.
.
Also, you make the false argument that non-religious people and non-Christians (along with non-Jews) have a different moral/ethical system.
.
Not true.

As for actual Marxists in the United States, they approached 1% mostly on the college campuses back in the 1930s.
.
The overwhelming majority of that tiny 1% of Marxists grew old and died twenty years ago.
.
Claiming Democrats are inspired by Marx is as unfair as saying that Republicans were inspired by Hitler.

Are you Homer Simpson?
.

.
Actually, hippo was presuming you are Homer Simpson.
.
The character is famously homophobic.

“If you don’t want to look around, or maybe come to California and see how Che is idolized here, and see that there are actually Marxists in our government, that’s your problem.”

.
“Communist Party USA
Chairperson Sam Webb
Founded September 1, 1919 (September 1, 1919)
Headquarters 235 W. 23rd Street
New York 10011
Youth wing Young Communist League USA
Membership 15,000
Ideology Communism, Marxism-Leninism
Political position Far-left.”
.
Ernesto Che Guevara was a romanticized character since he was an idealist and ladies found him handsome.
.
The overwhelming majority of his work was humanitarian, not military. He, obviously, was very inspired by his Catholic upbringing.
.
His face is used in advertisements today. Unless he lived to change his ideology very dramatically, that would have been about as insulting as having the Pope’s picture on condoms.
.
Apparently when it came to military matters, he was remarkably unsuccessful which is why his life was cut so short.

“So, the whole Constitution of the United States comes down to sodomy for you. That’s your concern. OK.”
.
yes liberalmeltdown that is EXACTLY what I mean. I really wonder who is more obsessed about it when the context of what I wrote boils down to that one word for you. I’m glad I didn’t write ‘abortion’ because that would have really set you off.
.
Thanks for illustrating perfectly well why moral and law is a bad combination. Because there might actually be a chance that a person such as yourself would one day legislate and as you show – that is a bad thing. Thanks Dr. Phelbs.

Link:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA
.
Your concept of Marxist in the US government is pathetic, paranoid and twisted.
.
Being a humanitarian is not the same as being Marxist.
.
To a very large share of Christians, believing in a humanitarian government is an extension of Christianity.
.
Keep on searching for those Communists, psychiatric meltdown.
.

“Homosexuality has sometimes been labeled by communists as “one of the effects of capitalist sociality”[1][2] and the product of the bourgeoisie,[3][4][5] while most communists, especially in recent times, have argued that Gay Liberation is a key issue according to Marxist thought….
.
In the 1930s under Joseph Stalin, male homosexuality, abortion and divorce were recriminalised in the nation. Article 121 explicitly criminalised male same-sex intercourse and with five years of hard prison labor as a penalty. The law was condemned by several communists operating in Britain. The law remained intact until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; it was repealed in 1993.[10] Although the Nazis persecuted homosexuals during the Holocaust, Josef Stalin regarded fascists and homosexuals as the same, and part of a far right homosexual conspiracy.[11]
[edit] Homosexuals and communist membership

Homosexuals were sometimes denied membership or expelled from communist parties[12] across the globe. However, nearly all communist parties accept homosexuals as members today..”
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_homosexuality
.
Sodomy is not a communist concept.
.
They were as repulsed as we are, but, lacked the understanding – as you do – that if some people inside of their home with the doors shut are doing this, it has zero impact on the rest of us.

“And where do you think that the concept that fraud, rape, robbery, murder is a crime comes from there Sherlock? It comes from morals. Or, do you think that the masses just invented the ideas?”
.
So how do they punish people in other countries that have laws that are not built on judeo-christian values?
.
I’m not going to address any of the other nonsense because I see that certain words really sets off your whole idiot apparatus. But I would really like for you to tell me how the rest of the world and all the different major religions comes to about the same conclusion on punishments for the same type of crimes.
.
“What a perfectly stupid statement. We judge the crime by how horrific it is based on morals. That’s why a murderer gets a stiffer sentence than someone that steals your smart car, or more likely your Volkswagen bus.”
.
Really?
.
Do you know that historically that horrific crime could either be served or paid as a fine? In Judeo-Christian nations no less?
.
Did you know that even despite our constitution many different crimes from horse tefth to murder carried the same punishment (death) and it still does in other countries with different religion?
.
Tell me exactly what happened to our legal code when we stopped applying the moral eye for an eye and instead punishment fitting the crime? Let me know if that was a Judeo-Christian opinion or not.
.
Finally – who is more likely arguing for an eye for an eye or a punishment fitting the crime? Someone applying Judeo-Christian moral values in a legal situation or someone applying common sense?
.
It’s mot brain science.

“Homosexuality

Roy Cohn spent several decades living a discreet life as a closeted gay man. When he brought on Schine as chief consultant, speculation arose that Schine and Cohn had a sexual relationship, although some historians have more recently concluded the friendship was platonic.[13][14][15] During the Army-McCarthy hearings, Cohn denied having any “special interest” in Schine or being bound to him “closer than to the ordinary friend.”[13] Joseph Welch, the Army’s attorney in the hearings, made an apparent reference to Cohn’s homosexuality. After asking a witness if a photo entered as evidence “came from a pixie,” he defined “pixie” for McCarthy as “a close relative of a fairy.” Fairy was, and is, a derogatory term for a gay man. Pixie was also a brand name for a line of cheap cameras[16]. The people at the hearing recognized the allusion and found it amusing; Cohn later called the remark “malicious,” “wicked,” and “indecent.”[13] Cohn and McCarthy targeted many government officials and cultural figures not only for suspected Communist sympathies, but also for alleged homosexuality.[17]
[edit] Death

In 1984, Cohn was diagnosed with AIDS[18] and attempted to keep his condition secret while receiving experimental drug treatment. He participated in clinical trials of AZT, a drug initially synthesized to treat cancer, but later developed as the first anti-HIV agent for AIDS patients. He insisted to his dying day that his disease was liver cancer.[19] He died on August 2, 1986 in Bethesda, Maryland, of complications from AIDS at the age of 59.[6] According to Republican political consultant Roger Stone, for whom Cohn was a role model, Cohn’s “absolute goal was to die completely broke and owing millions to the IRS. He succeeded in that.”[20] He is buried in Union Field Cemetery in Queens, New York.[1][8][21]”
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn
.
Sorry to tell you psychiatric meltdown that nearly 100% of the tiny communist party was heterosexual but, a fair number of communist hunters were gay including Roy Cohen.
.
As I see it, the far right is all about making sure that the government doesn’t do things to make it easier to support a family, so, I guess it is your right wing dream that, instead of having kids we turn gay instead.
.
You know, it doesn’t actually work that way. If we struggle to earn enough to support families we just get married to a woman later rather than sooner.

Very good point!
.
I took a class in pre-Norman Irish History,had a book on old Irish law and read it cover to cover.
.
“Thought to be the oldest form of law in Northern Europe, they were partially eclipsed by the Norman invasion of 1169, but underwent a resurgence in the 13th century, and survived in parallel with English law over the majority of the island until the 17th century.[1] “Early Irish Law” was often, although not universally, referred to within the law texts as “Fenechas”, the law of the Feni, or the freemen of Irelandian Ireland mixed with Christian influence and juristic innovation. These secular laws existed in parallel, and occasionally in conflict, with Canon law throughout the early Christian period.

The laws were a civil rather than a criminal code, concerned with the payment of compensation for harm done and the regulation of property, inheritance and contracts; the concept of state-administered punishment for crime was foreign to Ireland’s early jurists. They show Ireland in the early medieval period to have been a hierarchical society, taking great care to define social status, and the rights and duties that went with it, according to property, and the relationships between lords and their clients and serfs.”
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Irish_law
.
This form of “Christian” law also included price controls such that one could pay hefty fines for overcharging or undercharging the official price.
.
The concept of ties between capitalism and Christianity just are not there to be found at all. It is 100% fiction.
.
At the opposite end of the spectrum a several hundred year later and across the Irish Sea you found a completely different law, supposedly inspired by Christianity.
.
“In the years after 1660, the number of offences carrying the death penalty increased from around 50, to 160 in 1750 and to 222 in 1815.[citation needed] Crimes that were punishable by execution at this time included stealing anything worth more than 5 shillings, stealing horses or sheep, or writing a threatening letter, right through to arson, treason and murder. Despite there being so many crimes punishable by death, it has been estimated that fewer people were hanged in the 18th century than the century before.[citation needed]

The death penalty was removed from pickpocketing in 1808 and later from many other offences during the 1820s and 1830s. Judges and juries thought that punishments were too harsh for many of the criminals, so they became less inclined to find them guilty in court.[citation needed] Judges would frequently under-value stolen goods so that the accused would no longer face the death penalty.[citation needed]

Since the law makers still wanted punishments to scare potential criminals, but needed them to become less harsh, transportation became the more common punishment. Since the American Colonies had won independence by this time, the majority of convicts were transported to Australia. It has been estimated that over one-third of all criminals convicted between 1788 and 1867 were transported to Australia and Van Diemen’s Land (now Tasmania). Some criminals could escape transportation if they agreed to join the army as a punishment.”
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Code
.
One might look at these two polar opposite penal codes and say that they, clearly, were not inspired by the same type of religion at all.
.
Any theologian will tell you that the differences between Catholics and the Church of England are few and far between.
.
So, one might wonder, can one really have a code of laws inspired by the Christian Bible?
.
No.
.
Christianity is not a political ideology much less a means to create laws. It is simply a theology and nothing different.

I have to admit that the one thing which sticks out most in my memory of Irish law price controls was that it included the official price of braigetori.
.
A what, I wondered?
.
A professional farter.
.
“So, hey, what do you do here at the carnival”.
.
PFFFt!
.
“Oh, no!”
.
Pffft.pfft. pfft.
.
“Damn! You could have warned me first!”
.
Pfft pfft pfft. pffffffffft, pfffffft….
.
“I just ate lunch, I don’t want to hear the Star Spangled Banner!”

Patrick, thanks for warning mentioning braigetori / flatulists. Will we see this next on 3x’s resume? It’s amazing what people can literally do to entertain others. Maybe rusty is one of those too – he’s in a particularly bad mood this morning, as I’ve encountered again (morning reads). Another such body “artist” was Hadji Ali, “The Great Regurgitator.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadji_Ali

It’s not just a seminal text or a remarkable document; it’s the law of the land, and THAT was the point of reading it: to reaffirm a commitment to the notion that we’re a nation of laws, not men. If Altman wasn’t too stupid to comprehend that, he would also understand that leaving out the parts that are no longer the law makes perfect sense.

Or maybe Altman thinks that when Obama took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, he was swearing to uphold the 3/5 compromise?

@patricksartor Really?!?!! *smh*

Why do liberals consistently show such a lack of understanding of originalism? It doesn’t mean the constitution can never change. The amendment process is explicitly provided for in the constitution. Originalists like Scalia do NOT oppose changes via the amendment process!

Originalism is actually a very simple concept. Some may call it “the rule of law”. It means that the words the founders used must be interpreted with the intention that they understood they were giving it. Same with any amendment: Any amendment should be giving the understanding given to it by those who wrote it. Same with any statute. If statutes can simply “change meaning” based on a judge’s preferences, then what is the point of even having statutes? We should just have philosopher-kings ruling us instead.

The other explanation is that liberals purposely distort the meaning of originalism to mislead, which is far more insidious.

Gocart,
.
Obviously you do not understand that two people can look at “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ” notice the fact that there were militias and say that this has no relation to people keeping a gun in their house and that the framers of the constitution would agree with us, not you.
.
Just because I, among others, would imagine Alexander Hamilton standing over my shoulder saying “that’s right, Sartor. None of us thought that this had anything to do with guns” and you imagine John Adams standing over your shoulder saying “Obviously I wanted all Americans to be able to have guns in their home” does not mean that you or I have less respect for the writers of the constitution.
.
Just as I am sure that framers of the constitution would not want religious displays paid for with tax dollars, you (or at least many conservatives – I don’t know your POV) I do not believe our founding fathers would have, either since there was no cross or other sign of Christianity put up in government buildings when our framers were alive you are sure that they would.
.
We can’t bring them back from the dead to ask them. So, we all make the most reasonable guess we can and disagree.
.
What part of having a different POV using the same facts as you do believers in “original intent” not understand?

It’ll be interesting to see how 2nd Amendment fans will behave NOW given what just happened – Dem. Congresswoman Giffords has just been shot in Arizona.

Here is a question to conservatives:
.
” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
.
How does that mean that governments can stop the building of an Islamic cultural center a quarter mile from Ground Zero or anyplace else?
.
Stop an Islamic center and you are prohibiting the exercise of the Muslim religion.
.
Outside of putting in “Anybody can build Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian…. Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindo houses of worship anyplace which fits local zoning laws” how much more clear could it be that attempting to stop the building of a mosque is like using the constitution like toilet paper?
.
That really, really baffles me.
.
BTW: Thomas Jefferson, a deist (not a Christian) owned a copy of the Koran. Just because the number of Muslims in America were, most likely, in the single digit (possibly very low triple digit) numbers in 1789 does not mean that well educated people did not know such a faith existed.

Considering HCR, money for public schools, student loans, resolving the housing crisis are all about making it easier for a man to be a responsible husband and father and Republicans oppose all of these things but love low taxes as the greatest good, my best guess that is if I weren’t heterosexual, I would probably be a Log Cabin Republican.
.
Why do people who never can have children care about anything about those issues and not love low taxes?

NewsBusters: TIME Reporter Betrays Constitutional Ignorance in Bemoaning GOP ‘Cult of the Constitution’
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/01/08/time-reporter-betrays-constituiotnal-ignorance-bemoaning-gop-cult-co

“When liberals want to bash originalists, that is their go-to straw man: changing times demand a changing constitution, and any claim that the Constitution is inviolable and absolute leaves no room for adaptation and change. Therefore we have to circumvent the Constitution (the law) to keep it up-to-date and the federal government functional.”
.
Markay is making straw men and then accusing Altman of doing the same.
.
I say if Republicans want to make it legal to close down mosques, try passing an amendment about that and see where it goes.
.
If Republicans want to make an amendment “The Federal Government shall not provide any payment of any kind for any person not serving in or a veteran of the Armed forces or under the age 65 years of age for health care” try to get that amendment passed.
.
If not STFU about the constitution since we, also, regard ourselves as guardians of the constitution.
.
We guard against your party abusing it.

Gabrielle Giffords
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Arizona’s 8th district
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 3, 2007
Born June 8, 1970(1970-06-08)
Tucson, Arizona
Political party Democratic
Spouse Mark E. Kelly commander of STS-134 Endeavour, the final planned mission of the American space shuttle program.
Residence Tucson
Alma mater Cornell University (M.U.P.)
Scripps College (B.A.)
Profession Politician; businesswoman

Religion Judaism

Stepmother of two
.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is currently undergoing surgery for a gunshot wound to the head.
.
Earlier reports incorrectly said that she had died.
.
Nine people including a federal judge and a child were shot.
.
A suspect is in custody.
.
Tragic and avoidable.

Correction: 12 were shot, nine hospitalized.

When right wingers start saying that they know how liberals think and that we want to take away guns for well screened, sane, non-criminals for no reason at all, take a look at what has happened today.
.
We want nuts like whomever did this to go without a gun.
.
No way could any normal human being do this much harm with a knife or any weapon other than a gun.
.
This is the argument for gun control and how we (those favoring gun control – which include some self described conservatives and does not include some self described liberals like any other issue) that our founding fathers were talking about militias, not giving whatever nut who did this a gun.

I just found this when looking for something esle, Meltdown:
.
“They say that God works in mysterious ways. As proof, look no further than a recent story in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, which praised Homer Simpson for being a “true” Catholic. The publication cites The Simpsons for using “Christian faith, religion and questions about God” as recurring themes.

At first glance, it seems odd that a child-choking, beer-swilling glutton who has embodied all seven deadly sins could be considered a shining example of a man of faith. Then again, as the Vatican paper explained, the Simpson family “recites prayers before meals and, in their own way, believes in the life thereafter.” Even Melissa Henson, director of communications for the Parents Television Council, says, “The Simpsons is one of the more balanced treatments of faith-based characters that you’ll see. Flanders seems like a dork, but he’s sincere.”"
.
I was raised Catholic and was even practicing for about half of the time the Simpsons was on the air and would have never guessed in a million years that Homer would be considered a good example of a Christianity to The Vatican. (Flanders I am not at all surprised. I wish YOU were like well mannered Flanders.)
.
So, you are Homer Simpson.
.

.
(Only the German version is online for some reason Fox took off the English version.)

“House Speaker John Boehner said he was “horrified” by the shooting.
.
“An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve,” he said. “Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society.”"
.
I agree. I don’t know why it had to take until now to make that sentiment clear.

Is this show going on the road? Any body know the dates it’s coming to San Francisco? Will it play Broadway?

Gee, one little post and it keeps you busy for hours. I think that’s a great opportunity cost. Two minutes for me, hours for you.
.
And Hippo, you brought up the sodomy issue. Thanks again.

“And Hippo, you brought up the sodomy issue. Thanks again.”
.
I guess Stalin was right.
.
You right wingers really do love the sodomy.
.
I would love having affordable health care to make it easier for me to be a responsible husband and father, but, hey, enjoy your sodomy and, please, don’t tell liberals the details. Most of us are all about marriage and children and really don’t like details.

Oh, yeah, Psychiatric meltdown,
.
Good luck on finding those Marxists you were looking for.
.
Did you check to see if they were hiding under your bed with the monsters?

And no you don’t legislate morality, you live it. You have free will. And no you don’t legislate immorality, and force it on everybody.