Posted on 06/18/2012 3:41:16 AM PDT by Perdogg
AZ law - 5-4 in favor.
Obamacare - 5-4 against.
Obamacare severability - 5-4 against. It was not written that way, to do this would be legislating from the bench.
Don’t know about the last one.
That isn't what happened.
When Myers withdrew, Alito was nominated.
Ooops, I stand corrected. Thank you for the polite rebuke to my senile mind! ;-)
My sentiment remains. I believe that Myers would be a disaster right now and am glad that Conservatives forced GWB’s move to Conservatism during that nomination.
There is no principle involved in voting for laughable candidates with no chance. Petulance is not principled. And working for the enemy certainly is not principled merely denying reality.
Romney was never my candidate but my candidates either refused to run, shot themselves in the foot or were beaten by Romney in a fair fight. He will not be ideal (and we won’t even get into his religion) but compared to this Communist he is 100x better for our nation. Elect an overwhelmingly GOP Congress with more conservatives and Romney will not be a problem. Congress can say “no” to his goofy ideas as well as those of The Disaster.
Four more years of this and you can say goodbye to our future. That is not principled.
Adams was often wrong and I do not take him as my guide nor do I consider his statement applicable to today.
This is a very sensible, intelligent statement. Thank you!
What the hell? Do you even realize what you're saying? What you're saying is akin to saying that voting for a particular food is a waste because arsenic and cyanide are going to win.
Romney was never my candidate but my candidates either refused to run, shot themselves in the foot or were beaten by Romney in a fair fight.
Ah, so you're the sort who, if you were a girl, would swoon over a guy if he beat up a rival for your love?
So nice to know is that all it takes is "a fair fight" and not anything like character.
He will not be ideal (and we won’t even get into his religion) but compared to this Communist he is 100x better for our nation.
I disagree with you even there; he will be worse and here's how: Obama at least has a polarizing effect. With a Romney presidency lots of people will think "we did our job, we changed things! We put a republican in the White House" but sadly they are entirely mistaken; Romney will do NOTHING to reverse the policies that Obama has started. At best he will only slow the policies.
Elect an overwhelmingly GOP Congress with more conservatives and Romney will not be a problem.
The same can be said for Obama; that makes such statment of null value in arguing a vote for Romney.
Congress can say “no” to his goofy ideas as well as those of The Disaster.
Gee. They could say that to a President Obama, or a President Paul, or a President Gingrich. Again, this has null-value as an argument to vote for Romney.
Four more years of this and you can say goodbye to our future. That is not principled.
If it takes another 1776, then so be it. I will not vote for Romney.
Adams was often wrong and I do not take him as my guide nor do I consider his statement applicable to today.
It may be that he was often wrong; though I think not in this.
Far too many people are worried by "winnable" to actually strive. And that is a detriment to us all.
2) walk your sexual confusion elsewhere I am not interested. I don't go whining about how the Chicago Bears are REALLY the greatest team in the NFL even though the Super Bowl is OVER and they didn't play.
3) I doubt your judge of “character” is anything of interest to anyone other than the local chapter of Crackpots Anonymous.
4) while it is difficult to have a lower opinion of the American electorate than I do, what you predict will not be the case. VERY few people are willing to let Willard go his own way and this election is a watershed event. They are showing signs of becoming aroused and that will not change for a while. It will only change quicker than the natural course of events would take it if many people buy your phony line of “PUNT”. Should the Disaster win it would completely demoralize the Right and make attacks on the Tea Party and Conservatism 100x easier and more effective. You clearly have no clue about political momentum or what makes and breaks it.
5) you would have been bitching in 1776 that “Washington is too moderate, too conciliatory, worked for the British, is no better than King George...” and other such crap.
You Super “Conservatives” are such total phonies. I look at things ONLY from the perspective of what is best for our nation in the eyes of a patriot. There is NO way for a true patriot to justify any action which helps The Disaster stay in an office he is constitutionally ineligible for. No rhetoric can cover helping someone not a Natural Born Citizen sit in that office. No principle of any value can aid that illegality.
You Super “Conservatives” are such total phonies. I look at things ONLY from the perspective of what is best for our nation in the eyes of a patriot.
I put in nine years to the armed forces. I am actually sorry that I did so because the constitution that I thought I was upholding means jack shit in all actuality. If it did, then things would be a lot different. I won't deny that there's an element of personal hurt in my decision to let my enlistment expire, I'm fully aware that a huge reason that I got out was also the political nature of promotions, that does not invalidate my other reasons.
There is NO way for a true patriot to justify any action which helps The Disaster stay in an office he is constitutionally ineligible for.
And there's justification for the War on Drugs? (4th, 5th, 6th, 8th Amd)
Or the TSA? (4th Amd)
No rhetoric can cover helping someone not a Natural Born Citizen sit in that office. No principle of any value can aid that illegality.
I don't want him in office. In fact, one of the incidents that convinced me that the Army as-a-whole wouldn't uphold their oaths was an incident that happened in 2008 just after the election but prior the inauguration; we were doing a parade and the subject of Obama came up and I remarked that should it some out that he was ineligible it was the Army's duty to remove him from office, for such I got a "shut up, specialist" talk from an SFC.
go look up the "birther" threads and you'll sometimes see a wonderful progression someone made which has objections raised at every step with the responses we got "It's not the job of the Electors, it's the Congress, so you can't object now." and the like for EVERY step until "You can't complain, he's president." So, honestly, fuck that line of reasoning. Anything less than bloodshed at this point is "helping someone not a Natural Born Citizen sit in that office", so by your own words you are not a true patriot either. Welcome to the club, bub.
Analogy is useful only when appropriate which yours were not.
If you cannot see that Romney is FAR better than the Communist in terms of morality then you don’t know what the term means. There is NO doubt about this.
I doubt that your understanding of what the Constitution means would be very convincing considering the rest of your overblown rhetoric.
Most of the WoD is waged by states and localities. There is plenty of Constitutional authority for many of the feds actions. But much of your doubt is rooted in your inability to understand what the constitution says and means.
Your actions will assist the Usurper to remain in office. That is beyond a doubt. Joining the Lovers of Losers is a futile and infantile gesture only helping the enemies of America.
Your last remark is typical of those claiming “principled opposition” to supporting a candidate who could be an actual winner. Since practical actions are verboten they always raise the standard and propose things which are not in question such as armed violence. Immature silliness.
Mine was perfectly accurate: a choice between Obama and Romney is absolutely a Morton's Fork is concerned so far as NBC eligibility is concerned. It is a Morton's Fork so far as judicial appointments are concerned. (Romney's appointments are not different than Obama's.) Romney even instituted Romneycare, the father of Obamacare! Romney's for "assault waepon" bans. Thus I say Romney is no different than Obama in any field that actually matters.
If you cannot see that Romney is FAR better than the Communist in terms of morality then you don’t know what the term means. There is NO doubt about this.
See the above. Telling someone that eating their parents is morally superior to eating their children is avoiding the true issue that cannibalism is immoral. I doubt that your understanding of what the Constitution means would be very convincing considering the rest of your overblown rhetoric.
Really? I've spent the last three or four years investigating how to challenge contra-constitutional laws [statutes]. And I cannot challenge them aside from taking the weak point of violating such statute (because of 'standing') in order to challenge it.
What the fuck have you done?
Most of the WoD is waged by states and localities.
Irrelevant. If the 14th Amendment has incorperated the bill of rights, then all such locality action is violative of the Constitution; if not, well then, that makes for an interesting ball-game.
There is plenty of Constitutional authority for many of the feds actions.
Nope! Fast and Furious was an active act of war, state sponsored terrorism, and the active conspiracy against rights [fed felony]. The war on drugs is contrary to the Constitution by not being within the enumerated powers; in addition to that there is the precedence of the 18th amendment, meaning that the Constitution had to have an amendment for the federal government to have the authority to regulate a substance [in that case alcohol]. In the Case of the EPA, their rules and fines are contrary the 8th Amendment. The DOE, DOE, NEA [edu], USDA, and DEA are all excessive of the powers granted via Art 1, Sec 8.
But much of your doubt is rooted in your inability to understand what the constitution says and means.
Really? Show me hoe. Also let me appeal to its predecessor:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object 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.It seems to me that the federal government is indeed "destructive of these ends."
Your actions will assist the Usurper to remain in office. That is beyond a doubt. Joining the Lovers of Losers is a futile and infantile gesture only helping the enemies of America.
No, it is not my actions that will; but my inaction. To wit, that I am too much a coward to abolish the evils to which I have become accustomed.
Your last remark is typical of those claiming “principled opposition” to supporting a candidate who could be an actual winner. Since practical actions are verboten they always raise the standard and propose things which are not in question such as armed violence. Immature silliness.
Ah, and yet the 'mature' route is to throw in with someone who is exactly the same? Fuck that.
Hell, the only reason I'm not running is that I'm not eligible (too young)... but I think I'd be a far better choice than Romney.
What you fail to hear is what I have said: there is no difference between the two. Before, with McCain v. Obama, the "lesser of two evils" argument might have worked, but this case is different, the only difference is that Romney is a socialist and Obama is a... oh, socialist. It is for this reason that I can easily say that I won't vote for either of them.
Being "electable" doesn't mean that I have to vote for the guy; hell I'd be 'unelectable' because I think the fed-gov is overreaching, that I'd reduce the size thereof, that I hate injustice and would do my ever-loving best to put the terror of God into those officials who are corrupt in our government... hell, that I consider homosexuality to be a "biologically suicidal philosophy which should not be encouraged."
It is simply a LIE to claim Romney is no different than Obama. There is not a shred of truth in such silliness, typical as it is among the Lovers of Losers. Hence, your analogy is totally invalid.
Romneycare is the product primarily of the Mass. legislature which the majority of its citizens wanted. THAT alone is sufficient to show that it has nothing to do with Obamacare.
States are the political entities wherein such experiments are to be made.
I am sure you have been wildly successful challenging unconstitutional laws particularly with no real understanding of the constitution itself.
Obviously the 14th amendment does NOT incorporate the Bill of Rights or we would not have hundreds Gun Control Laws violating the 2d passed by states. Nor is there anything in the constitution which would prevent states from enacting anti-drug laws. States are precisely the arena for all aspects of criminal law.
Since you are a Constitutional law expert I also assume you realize that the BoR was not intended to apply to the states, only to the federal government.
The “enumerated powers” argument was never accepted by the writers or even Jefferson. They all understood that the Constitution was a FRAMEWORK for government not a blueprint. If you want a clear understanding what is or is not constitutional you should make a careful study of Hamilton’s essay on the National Bank.
Almost all the Founders understood that the fact of sovereignty itself has certain powers incorporated within the concept. And that the enumerated powers have associated with them various powers which are necessary means to carrying out those powers.
There is nothing in the Constitution which specifically empowers the federal government to patrol the border, yet who is foolish enough to claim that that is not a constitutional action? Implied powers are within the constitution particularly since language specifying that “...only...” was explicitly rejected as in “...only these powers...” or “...only specified powers...” at the Constitutional Convention.
The Constitution was written PRIMARILY to increase the power of the federal government and decrease that of the states.
There is nothing in the 18th amendment preventing the federal government from controlling substances or material from entering the country. That is primarily where it fights the WoSD. In addition, we have TREATIES which require fighting the WoSD so the unconstitutional argument is dead in the water. If you have researched these matters as you claim (though crackpot websites and writings are not a good source for research) then you will know that treaties are incorporated into the “...supreme Law of the Land.” once they get Senatorial ratification.
Nor do EPA rules violate the 8th amendment outside of your opinion. Congress has been concerned with water pollution for over a hundred years under the belief that sovereignty itself allows control over the waters of the nation. This reasoning also applies to air and ground pollution. As to the fines which actually get paid they are generally arrived at by working down from the statutory maximums and negotiation with the violators. Some might be reasonably called excessive but there has been little effort to challenge the laws themselves on constitutional ground.
None of the agencies you specify as unwarranted expansion are clearly unconstitutional. Unwise or useless but not unconstitutional.
Perhaps you missed the point of the Declaration (which was not a foundation for a government but a rhetorical document to justify rebellion). It speaks of changing the “form” of government. Now there are only a limited number of forms of government: a republic, a monarchy, a tyranny (a dictatorship would fall under this) or an aristocracy. This has been clear since Aristotle discussed the issue. What FORM do you advocate if not a “republic”? Remember that the Constitution itself declares that the states will be guaranteed a republic form of government.
Hence, the rhetoric describing the situation in 1776 is inappropriate now. The government we have NOW is the result of what the PEOPLE wanted. Changing the government is impossible without changing the PEOPLE.
Our Founders made sure that the People had representation and the only real way to change the government is by elections. Hence, your futile and infantile gesture is really saying that the Founders were wrong and the People cannot be trusted. BTW changes in government were deliberately made difficult since the FF believed the real danger was from a fickle and irresolute People.
Only the Crackpot Right and Crackpot Left believes the alternatives are the “same”. Since they are a tiny minority they really don’t matter. Leaps into Irrelevance.
In order to become President you have to be able to WIN the presidency. You could not truthfully get elected dogcatcher in a One Dog Town using nothing but falsehoods and hysterical rhetoric. Well, maybe as a Democrat.
You can’t just call someone a name and MAKE them that. So, unfortunately for you, Romney does not become a “socialist” at your labeling him such.
If you come upon an arsonist pouring gasoline on a fire and a fireman pouring water on it, you would be the guy shooting at the fireman claiming they both are the same.
Who's making inappropriate analogies now?
Anyway there's a lot of stuff in your post; I'd like to address lots of it, but let me cut down to the root: you claim that I've no understanding of Constitutions. Read this, and then tell me that I've no understanding.
Romneycare is the product primarily of the Mass. legislature which the majority of its citizens wanted. THAT alone is sufficient to show that it has nothing to do with Obamacare.
Ah, the same argument could be made WRT to the federal legislature: the majority of its citizens wanted Obama's healthcare, hence electing those who passed it.
I understand what you are telling me, but I still am voting for Romney.
He is not my perfect candidate. At all.
I really dislike the government. Really.
My husband is a career Soldier, and he can’t join a “militia.” He would be charged with a hate crime, etc.
You may vote for whomever you wish and have your own opinion, but my reality is a bit different than yours.
The Kenyan communist bastard is my husband’s boss. Even if Romney is one step above him, so be it.
Romney is still a cold blooded capitalist...I’ll take my chances.
I agree that America is probably doomed. But come January, either Obama or Romney will be sitting in the WH. At least I won’t want to projectile vomit everytime I turn on the tv if it is Romney.
My conscience is pissed. The people I want to run the country cannot win or won’t run. However, throwing my vote into an abyss won’t do any good, or make me feel any better.
Excuse my incredulity, but he's probably already technically a member.
Missouri Constitution, Article IV, Section 6 says:
The governor shall be the commander in chief of the militia, except when it is called into the service of the United States, and may call out the militia to execute the laws, suppress actual and prevent threatened insurrection, and repel invasion.
Sadly the Missouri Constitution isn't up in its entirety; but it is highly likely that it contains a definition that includes him, some variant of "all able-bodied males 18 to 45."
You may vote for whomever you wish and have your own opinion, but my reality is a bit different than yours.
Undoubtedly, I just hate to see you put in a position where you believe that Romney is acceptable.
The Kenyan communist bastard is my husband’s boss. Even if Romney is one step above him, so be it.
One of the reasons I let my enlistment expire was because it was made plain to me that no one would act to enforce the Constitution WRT it's qualification clause.
Romney is still a cold blooded capitalist...I’ll take my chances.
If you are right, I have no doubt that he'd sell America out. Given that Obama's era Congress has started the precedent of operating w/o a budget, I see no reason for him to push for them to do so, though it be required by law.
I agree that America is probably doomed. But come January, either Obama or Romney will be sitting in the WH. At least I won’t want to projectile vomit everytime I turn on the tv if it is Romney.
Sadly that's actually the one differentiating factor between the two; that Obama polarized his opponents against him: and it really proves that the Republican party is either utterly ineffectual, or not really his enemy. (I tend to think the latter, given how much overstepping of his authority he's done and not been held to account.)
My conscience is pissed. The people I want to run the country cannot win or won’t run. However, throwing my vote into an abyss won’t do any good, or make me feel any better.
Hell, the only reason I'm not running is that the Constitution bars me from being President due to my birth. (I'm still too young.)
My analogy is perfect. Just because you don’t like does not make it imperfect.
As to your constitutional analysis I don’t have to read any further than your proposal to allow guns in court to know it is nuts. The 2d Amendment does not say that people have the right to bear arms EVERYWHERE and AT ALL TIMES. What are you afraid that the Judge is going to take a shot at you?
You ignore completely the reason the amendment was written and the fact that it had nothing to do with personal security. It was written and clearly states that it is there to PROTECT the states from the feds. To assure people that state militias were not to be disarmed. “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.” Anti-federalists were worried that the feds would possess the only armed forces and it was to reassure them and others that the militias would remain viable institutions. Some states even include language such as that of the Illinois constitution (not that it means anything in reality) that all able-bodied citizens are members of the militia.
And, you misstate the situation wrt Obamacare. It was NEVER a popular idea and was rammed through without knowing what was in it. Totally different than what happened in Mass. sophistry aside.
Now, of course, “the people” did not include Blacks in southern states for over a hundred years and they were systematically disarmed. Mentally ill people are rightfully still excluded as are felons.
And you ignore completely that in the linked article I am referencing, for the most part, the State's own Constitution.
Mentally ill people are rightfully still excluded as are felons.
Both of those positions I disagree on; a felon having served his sentence should have full rights and privileges restored; to do otherwise is to create a second class of citizen.
As for the 'mentally ill', I do not think that is a good idea because, just as soviet Russia showed us, political dissidents are obviously mentally ill, otherwise they would not dissent.
As to your constitutional analysis I don’t have to read any further than your proposal to allow guns in court to know it is nuts.
So then it's a-ok to force people who have committed no crime to appear in a court, disarmed, all while denying any obligation to provide for their safety?
That is an idiotic position for anyone to take.
Such a situation literally begs for abuse of jurors by the threats of the court should they "get uppity" and try to use the right of nullification on a case that the state deems *must* be a crime. Imagine, if you will the jury of say George Zimmerman, being bullied into finding him guilty of *something*... not that I think our courts are quite that corrupt yet, but such is not unthinkable any longer.
And, you misstate the situation wrt Obamacare. It was NEVER a popular idea and was rammed through without knowing what was in it. Totally different than what happened in Mass. sophistry aside.
So? It passed the legislature and was signed into law by the executive. That in itself is enough, no?
Unless, of course, the Constitution not delegating such power to the federal government is in essence the same as prohibiting it. (10th Amd.)
(That is to say, the popularity of something is completely separate/independent from the lawfulness of that thing.)
Idealism is nice and all and to be encouraged but it has to come up against fact from time to time.
Crime is pretty much a professional affair in this country and the vast majority of it is committed by the same people, people who should not have legal guns. Should an ordinary non-criminal commit a felony there are provisions, as some one who studies constitutions knows, to obtain pardons and restoration of rights denied. But most of these mopes are just as well excluded from gun ownership and from voting (btw virtually every one of those votes would be a vote for the Left).
If you don’t want to be a second class citizen don’t commit crimes. And don’t even THINK that our Founders share your libertarian view of this. Not even Jefferson came close.
Perhaps part of your inability to adjudge realities is the erroneous conclusion that this country is like the USSR. I know of one person who claimed to be declared mentally ill for political reasons, maybe, Wilhelm Reich. It is not happening and won’t IF Obama is denied a second term. If he slithers back in the all bets are off.
YES, it is a-ok to deny access to courts by armed people. Bystanders are in no danger from the court or its deputies unless they are raving A-holes. Those complaining about such policies are more in danger from themselves than from armed deputies. Once again Realities come up against idealism. Let’s see ANY jury convict gangbangers when 60 heavily armed Latin Kings shows up at the trial of a member.
There is no danger of jury members from any court personnel but there is GIGANTIC danger from an armed audience there to interfere with justice being served. What world are you living in when it is clear that the jury trying Zimmerman (if these lunatics proceed that far) would be facing a courtroom filled with the armed Left NOT conservatives? With a media cheering it on.
Unless your real goal is to have an armed shoot-out at a courthouse to demonstrate something you wish to see. You are too young to remember this but do me a favor and look up “George Jackson”, “Angela Davis”, “Jonathan Jackson” then get back to me on your whacky idea.
The passage of Obamacare was nothing like the passage of MA healthcare law. It could not have passed with the relatively open methods used in Mass. It is sophistry to claim otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.