Rick Santorum predicts a convention fight with Ron Paul delegates over party platform

Yahoo ^ | 06/08/2012 | Chris Moody

[tacticalogic]

Misunderstanding the Constitution may be destructive but it isn’t a crime in any way that I’m aware of.

You said:

You speak of the Constitution, and following it, but consistently ignore its stated purposes, all of which abortion violates, and continue to do EXACTLY what the Ninth Amendment expressly forbids.

That is a direct accusation of being in violation of the amendment, for having done nothing more than present an argument.

[EternalVigilance]

By the way, how active have you been in your support for the various state-level and national amendments and legislation to ban abortion?

Because I’ve actively supported virtually all of them, as long as they meet the necessary standard of equal protection.

[EternalVigilance]

You’re doing it in argumentation on a website. Again, I fail to see how this could possibly be a crime.

[tacticalogic]

Convince ‘em, or fight ‘em. Of course.

What, you're going to personally go around to their offices and beat them up if they don't get in line?

What are you going to do to pass this amendment of which you speak, and what will its wording be?

Convince them. Wording is subject to consensus.

[EternalVigilance]

What, you're going to personally go around to their offices and beat them up if they don't get in line?

What a ridiculous thing to say.

[EternalVigilance]

Wording is subject to consensus.

---

“Consensus: The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus?'”

-- Margaret Thatcher

[tacticalogic]

Well then, what does "fight them" mean? Where do you plan to fight them? In court? In the street? Where? How?

Talk is cheap, and the promises of politicians can be had at a discount. What's the plan?

[tacticalogic]

And of course everybody agreeing to sign you pledge doesn’t amount to “consensus”, right?

[tacticalogic]

You’re doing it in argumentation on a website. Again, I fail to see how this could possibly be a crime.

You fail to see how it can be a crime, but you explicitly told me I was in violation of the Ninth Amendment.

Do you think there might be any consequences if President of the United States started making that kind of mistakes?

[EternalVigilance]

You’re really off on a strange tangent with that one.

[tacticalogic]

So if you get elected, when you get caught making that kind of mistake, you’ll address it by pretending to not understand what they’re talking about. That’ll make us all look good.

[EternalVigilance]

What kind of mistake? You haven’t explained how posting your opinion about the Constitution on a website could possibly constitute a crime.

[tacticalogic]

It appears my mistake was feeding a troll.

[EternalVigilance]

No. Your mistake is in thinking you can be an originalist while ignoring the original principles and all of the original stated purposes of the Constitution and the republic.

[tacticalogic]

No. Your mistake is in thinking you can be an originalist while ignoring the original principles and all of the original stated purposes of the Constitution and the republic.

I understood them to create a republic, with a national government of limited and enumerated powers and all unenumerated powers reserved to the States, having decided that this was the best way to attain their stated objectives.

Do you submit that the did something different?

[EternalVigilance]

Like most folks in your camp, you apparently don't have the ability to discern the difference between legitimate powers and illegitimate powers, or between powers and rights.

You ignore the most important moral natural law principles that comprise the cornerstone of our republic and our claim to liberty.

And you choose to consistently ignore the sacred duties that of necessity go along with all powers and rights.

[tacticalogic]

And I think you've made the mistake of assuming that stating an objective in the Constitution meant they intended for it to be accomplished by the federal government.

They stated their objectives, and then they divided the powers of government explicitly among the national and state governments, according to their determination of which level of government was appropriate to exercise the power necessary to accomplish those objectives.

[EternalVigilance]

And I think you've made the mistake of assuming that stating an objective in the Constitution meant they intended for it to be accomplished by the federal government.

They stated their objectives, and then they divided the powers of government explicitly among the national and state governments, according to their determination of which level of government was appropriate to exercise the power necessary to accomplish those objectives.

No. You don't get it. All officers of government in this country must swear a binding oath to fully support those purposes, within their legitimate jurisdictions, without exception.

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

-- Article VI, the United States Constitution

[tacticalogic]

No. You don't get it. All officers of government in this country must swear a binding oath to fully support those purposes, within their legitimate jurisdictions, without exception.

What enumerated power gives jurisdiction to the national government?

[EternalVigilance]

What enumerated power gives jurisdiction to the national government?

That's like asking what jurisdiction an apple tree has to bear apples.

It's why it exists.

It is its raison d'etre, or reason for being.

In the same way, according to America's founders, our national government, and all governments, exist to equally protect the unalienable rights of the people, starting with their right to live.

"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..."

Why is this so hard to grasp?