Posted on 10/26/2006 12:56:04 PM PDT by forest
The Socialists that took over the Democrat Party starting with FDR, do not believe in our Constitutional Republic nor even Democracy.
That is the reason they like all "for life dictators" like Fidel Castro.
They want to be just like him, they will be in tears when he dies.
Dude, shorten it up.
= statist
Earlier. William Jennings Bryan at he turn of the century.
pinging for after I cut down that big old tree to make enough paper to print this sucker out
Leftism Revisited is a very authoritative book, and uses "isms" well.
I am not a dude, whatever that means.
Could you please explain you've arrived at the conclusion that fascism and communism are identical? You are aware that they are very distinct ideologies that differ in both their origins and their idealized society's correct?
Simply because both systems are totalitarian, and both are exceedingly poor choices for government, does not make them interchangeable. These terms mean specific things, and when you lump everything together that you find (correctly) objectionable, you lose all your credibility.
Good thought. Thanks.
Poorly edited:
society's = society
I was hoping for constructive comments on my attempt to completely destroy the Democratic Party in this critical week before elections.
Whew!
Ok, Forest, let's play.
There are two things we need to talk about in your long post.
One is an error.
You cited someone who wrote this:
"Continuing, the Supreme Court of the United States has cited the Federalist Papers as a definitive document for the Constitution of the United States.
That makes those Federalist Papers an integral part of (if not integral, certainly a vital link to) the Constitution of the United States."
No Forest, that's not how it works. The Supreme Court does not have the power to "make the Federalist Papers an integral part of the Constitution of the United States", and it has never done so.
Your post uses lots of legalisms, and has a lot of definitions in it, but here are two definitions you need to learn:
Holding: the legal decision in a case. THIS is what the court orders. and is the only part of a case where the court has actually made law. Holdings are usually a sentence long. Sometimes only a word, like "Affirmed" or "Reversed". The only part of a Supreme Court decision that is LAW is the actual decision on the issue presented to the court. Everything else is "dictum" or "obiter dictum".
Obiter dictum: the rest of the words in a judicial opinion. This is the part where the judges explain why they came to the decision they did. The decision itself, the holding, is law. The dictum is the judge's reasoning. It is not, itself law. The difference is fundamental. A lower court judge, when he gets an opinion from the Supreme Court, most certainly MUST apply the holding: that's the law. But the dictum? THAT doesn't compel him to do anything. Of course he needs to KNOW it, because it tells him which his superiors are thinking, but it ain't law.
There has never been a HOLDING in any Supreme Court case that "The Federalist Papers are an integral part of the Constitution". And therefore, the Federalist Papers are NOT part of the Constitution at all, as a matter of law. It's not a debatable point, when one uses legal terms CLEARLY.
A Supreme Court justice, maybe several, may well have expressed great fondness for the Federalist papers. That's wonderful. It's their opinion. It ain't law. At all. Not even a little bit.
The Federalist Papers are interesting history, and can tell you what SOME OF the Founders at Philadelphia thought they were doing and how the Constituton would work. It's good stuff. It's not part of the Constitution, and has not the slightest scintilla of legal power in America whatever. It's a bunch of newspaper editorials - literally. Legally, it's nothing more.
(2) Define "democracy" please.
I did not state that they are identical. I did state that they have destructive goals in common.
Democracy is explained in the paper, at least what is needed here. The 4 isms must destroy our government to be applied. That is the danger signal I had hoped people would see.
When that is the second line of your article, you are, in fact, stating that they are identical.
Fascism and Communism are very, very different ideologies. When you lump them together because they have "striking similarities", you lose a great deal of credibility because they're goals are quite different from one another.
Again, they both may be totalitarian, and they both may bring misery to those living under their systems, but that does not justify using them interchangeably. Its sloppy, and its very superficial to do so.
For those wondering about "statism", I copied the definition from Wikipedia. There are varying definitions for the term. I assume that you used the state intervention meaning.
"Statism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Statism (or Etatism) is a very loose and often derogatory term that is used to describe:
1. Specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters. 2. A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
"There is no precise definition of how much state intervention represents statism. Thus, at one extreme, some anarchists consider that the mere existence of a state is enough to make a country statist, while at the other extreme it is argued that only the most rigid totalitarian systems are truly statist. Usually, however, the term "statism" is used with a negative or derogatory connotation, in reference to something that the speaker considers to be an example of too much state intervention.
"The term tends to be used most often with respect to economic policies. For instance, Merriam-Webster defines statism as a "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government." Advocates of economic liberalism typically use the term "statism" to refer to any economy that does not conform to the standard of laissez-faire capitalism."
Charm, wit and levity
will win you in the start,
but in the end it's brevity
that keeps the public's heart
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.