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
pinging for after I cut down that big old tree to make enough paper to print this sucker out
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.
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.
Charm, wit and levity
will win you in the start,
but in the end it's brevity
that keeps the public's heart
You might be surprised at what governments and countries and individuals of all stripes are capable of. It was the Republicans who helped give us the income tax, and Kuehnelt-Leddihn's beloved Austrian monarchy that did so much to give us the First World War and all that came with it.
One of the starting points of totalitarianism is that it did to a country's own population what governments had long been doing to foreigners and outsiders.
Sorry, but while this article may have some good points to make, it is a confusing and poorly organized and formatted mess (and looong).
With a little more effort in the area of links and pictures you could be the next Mia T (just find a subject other than Hillary - it's taken)
BTW - Thanks.
marker to finish later