Conservatives Hate Obama More Than They Love America

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I can contribute politely and meaningfully

Now if you'll come off your childish, hypocritical screaming

Have I told you that I hate liars? Well I do.

I point to an argument, share what is wrong with it and defend the assertion

And throw in some self congratulatory drivel and spew insults to build yourself up but hey, let's not worry about minor details.

That's all well and good, but the problem is what the Constitution actually permits. A great deal of Constitutional law is and always has been whether or not an issue not directly addressed by Constitution is implied, inferred, or ought to be addressed. Even the men who drafted the document argued over what it actually meant after the ratification, and immediately felt it necessary propose 12 amendments to specifically limit and define the government and bring forth arguments for the role of the new government. This is the greatness of the Constitution that is so often touted as a living document. Knowing that no framework is perfect or timeless, it was given mechanisms to adapt to new social and economic ideals, new responsibilities or limits or government, or new technologies and ideas through amendment or establishment of legal precedents based on the standing document.

No shit! Stop trying to build strawmen. The amendment process is part of the constitution too. The whole point is that the rules can be changed if the times demand it but it should not be something done lightly. In other words, if something does need to be changed, then go through the proper process. Don't just break rules because you don't like them and that's what governments get away with too often. THAT is what I have a problem with. The fact that you jump to this conclusion says to me that you want to see a loon and nothing more so don't try and tell me that you're all fair minded because you're not convincing me of that with your actions here.

The problem with the Libertarian idea is that it is so very uncompromising and literal, that it refuses to accept that there is grounds for interpreting intent and applying it to a modern context and probably stands in opposition, just as well, to changing a document that they revere. However, given the early context of dissent to the Constitution itself, I feel I must reject an absolutist Libertarian ideal because it denies to the Constitution what is supposed to make it so great. Honestly, would you actually argue its greatness if the framers had NOT proposed the Bill of Rights? If not, then I imagine you can see what is wrong with the literalist interpretation.

Strawman, where does it say that libertarianism opposes amendments? Show me, right now.

The assertion that there were no unconstitutional acts between 1789 and 1932

Strawman, I said no such thing. Don't take my statements and extremify them. That's intellectual dishonesty and you know it.

This was most certainly not ignorance of the Constitution, and most definitely suggests that it has been upheld despite aggressive Executive pursuit of sometimes questionable policy.

I'm going to make sure I'm clear here. Are you honestly suggesting the constitution has been overall upheld to the present day?

[kia252]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

Have I told you that I hate liars? Well I do.

And throw in some self congratulatory drivel and spew insults to build yourself up but hey, let's not worry about minor details.

No shit! Stop trying to build strawmen. The amendment process is part of the constitution too. The whole point is that the rules can be changed if the times demand it but it should not be something done lightly. In other words, if something does need to be changed, then go through the proper process. Don't just break rules because you don't like them and that's what governments get away with too often. THAT is what I have a problem with. The fact that you jump to this conclusion says to me that you want to see a loon and nothing more so don't try and tell me that you're all fair minded because you're not convincing me of that with your actions here.

Strawman, where does it say that libertarianism opposes amendments? Show me, right now.

And you say I spew insult instead of real debate! At least I have had the decency to keep to criticizing your arguments and questioning your tactics instead of petty name-calling. I'll also say that just because I can politely contribute, doesn't mean I have to grant you a level of respect you consistently fail to earn. Further, you jump to the to the dubious, raving argument that because I misconstrued your ill-presented case, I must be willfully building strawman arguments. You could correct me before assuming I am willfully shaping your arguments to meet my own ends. You never cease to disregard or misinterpret my arguments, but I am more than willing to clarify them before screaming strawman to give you the chance to respond to real debate that you don't seem so eager to accept.

I can accept and put aside some of the criticism for the amendment process, but that does nothing to address the issue of judicial review and interpretation I brought up as means of understanding intent to address modern issues unthinkable during the drafting of the Constitution. There is the freedom to interpret some broad clauses in the Constitution to pursue policy that does not require explicitly amending it. This was expected, and there was oversight put in place to insure that the legislature and president did not overstep their bounds in interpreting their responsibilities and limits of power. This has been the role of the Supreme Court, ultimately, to decide whether laws are in keeping with the standards established in the Constitution and does not infringe upon rights otherwise enumerated to other entities. Despite so many attempts to inject a ideological slant, the Court has a pretty good track record of holding when implied powers are, in fact, constitutional or not. Granted, it has not been perfect, but I wouldn't think anyone should expect it to be. I'd definitely take the judgement of an experienced legal scholar reviewing and clarifying precedence over someone who screams, "my narrow, literal interpretation is the only correct one and I'm gonna try to ignore your arguments for disagreeing!"

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

Strawman, I said no such thing. Don't take my statements and extremify them. That's intellectual dishonesty and you know it.

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

That's how it was for many centuries before Roosevelt completely undermined it with his New Deal nonsense. Before all that, all government did was keep the peace and otherwise leave people alone. Government's powers were kept restricted so that it did it's job as the constitution described and no further.

I don't understand what other interpretation I can make here. What is it? You didn't mean what you said? Backpedaling? Is the statement "the government didn't do anything unconstitutional between 1789 and 1932" an extremification of "the government didn't do anything unconstitutional before Roosevelt?" Is it unconstitutional for "government to keep the peace and otherwise leave people alone?"

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

I'm going to make sure I'm clear here. Are you honestly suggesting the constitution has been overall upheld to the present day?

I don't buy your contention that people, for the most part, are ignoring it and getting away with it. Apathy, misunderstanding, and differing interpretations are the biggest challenges I can see. There is tremendous respect for the foundations of our government, sometimes to a fault, despite those problems. I do think people do try to uphold it, but there are missteps along the way that, thankfully, can be corrected and are always being corrected so long as people attempt to be knowledgeable and responsible in their role as citizens (which I have made the case is disappointingly lacking, though still existant).

It seems to me that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to undermine the framework of our government instead of taking terms like "promote the general Welfare" or "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" to include quite a bit more than you do.

I doubt I'm gonna change your mind, you've made it clear you are too stubborn, arrogant, self-righteous, intellectually lazy, and deceitful to bring anyone closer to the truth through debate or introspection. But I guess I can settle with letting others see that your arguments are poor and your ideology can be problematic.