Conservatives Hate Obama More Than They Love America

[LOD]

Originally Posted by Soccermom

I would say "It would help us from ever making that same mistake again."

But I can't, because the other side was a mistake too. We were fucked either way.

Maybe we would have been better off with John Kerry.

[Hooded_Miracle]

Okay, let me rephrase:

Unless I see a president without a flaw that makes the rest of his campaign (or whatever) look bad, I'll vote for Chuck Norris.

Also, I don't understand why people say you can't have a political opinion if you don't vote. If I vote for Chuck Norris, it ain't any better than NOT voting...

[OhZone]

Oh-k, actually I think all the Republicans should vote for Chuck Norris instead of the GOP nominee!

[kia252]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

Actually he does because that's what the constitution says. The constitution is not the bible, it is in fact VERY clear in it's instructions. As he pointed out, it's supposed to restrict all branches of government but how can it when said branches can make it mean whatever they want to? The rule of law must not be subject to whims. Even in the case of jury nullification, majority rule still doesn't win the day. It must be unanimous. Not perfect? Sure but what is?

If that's what it says, why does he have to argue for specific qualifications of terms and where are his grounds to deny specific qualifications of terms for others? He settles on the standard of contemporary definition, but that is basically the same as arguing intent ("what did they mean by this word?"), which he denies as problematic. It seems you agree with his interpretation, but that does not necessarily make it what the constitution says. It does grant powers and restrictions to government, but it is debatable what the powers are.

It's a good thing that my argument remains that the rule of law is not subject to whims, but rather it establishes a system to explain the its own meaning should all other means fail or find conflict, courts. To deny that is to deny the functionality of constitutional law.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Hooded_Miracle

I've noticed that in the last few elections, it's either you vote for one mistake or the other.

I like America, but I plan on voting for Chuck Norris until I see a side with a candidate that doesn't have any glaring flaws. ('_')/

In practical terms, if you don't like any of the candidates, go to the voting booth and turn in a blank voting ballot. This will make your statement clear. (if you don't vote at all, they'll just dismiss you as being too lazy to bother.)

It's a good thing that my argument remains that the rule of law is not subject to whims, but rather it establishes a system to explain the its own meaning should all other means fail or find conflict, courts. To deny that is to deny the functionality of constitutional law.

I'll say again, the constitution is intended to restrict courts as much as all the other branches. How can it do that if the courts get to say what it means?

You still continue to evade the bigger point, how do you straight faced deny all the blatant violations of the constitution are in fact violations? Truth is not democratic, just because some people say they aren't violations doesn't make it so.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

I'd love for there to be a box I could check off when I vote as a way to express my absolute distaste with the candidates (often their behaviour towards one another) being the reason I won't vote. Otherwise, yeah, my choice not to vote is interpretted as laziness.

Has anyone read "The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" or seen the film? Super interesting. I admire a lot of Naomi Wolf's gender equality efforts so hearing her take on this issue was fascinating. Super intelligent, beautiful woman.

[kia252]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

I'll say again, the constitution is intended to restrict courts as much as all the other branches. How can it do that if the courts get to say what it means?

You know, that's a very good question. That seems like a problem with the Constitution more than my argument. There is the recourse that should a Justice(s) not act in "good behavior" and attempt to unduly expand their power, they can be impeached by Congress, a necessary check. Of course, the precedent for the expansion of judicial power would probably need to be overturned by the newly appointed Justice(s), since Congress, or anyone else, does not have the authority to overturn the ruling. As you have said, it's not perfect, but it's functional so far and must be accepted for faults as well as strengths if you want to argue the value of the Constitution.

You still continue to evade the bigger point, how do you straight faced deny all the blatant violations of the constitution are in fact violations? Truth is not democratic, just because some people say they aren't violations doesn't make it so.

If that were the bigger question you should have asked it, so I could tell you that was not my argument. You asked how I could deny that people were blatantly ignoring the Constitution to get what they want. My response was that they believed to be upholding the Constitution, and even gave examples. They may be wrong, but that does not constitute blatantly ignoring the Constitution as much as having a faulty understand or interpretation.

[genderhazard]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

I'll say again, the constitution is intended to restrict courts as much as all the other branches. How can it do that if the courts get to say what it means?

It is in fact the supreme court and not the constitution that "judicial review" -- the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution was established. The result of Marbury v. Madison, was arguably the most important case in Supreme Court history. Written in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall, the decision played a key role in making the Supreme Court a separate branch of government on par with Congress and the executive.

You could argue that it is not spposed to be. Throughout its long history, when the Court needed to affirm its legitimacy, it has cited Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison.






Naomi Wolf used to be hot about 10 years ago, now she's a little on the chunky side. She should see Jenny Craig.

[DalekSec]

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

I'd love for there to be a box I could check off when I vote as a way to express my absolute distaste with the candidates (often their behaviour towards one another) being the reason I won't vote. Otherwise, yeah, my choice not to vote is interpretted as laziness.

Has anyone read "The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" or seen the film? Super interesting. I admire a lot of Naomi Wolf's gender equality efforts so hearing her take on this issue was fascinating. Super intelligent, beautiful woman.

I vote because it means to much to me not to. In my lifetime, I have only ever VOTED for two candidates with any serious enthusiasm.

Ed Koch for Mayor of NYC. (Dem by the way).

Ronald Reagan as a matter of loathing Carter so much more a vote AGAINST Carter than a vote FOR Reagan.

Yes I HAVE read the work you mention and am reminded that BOTH sides meet when it comes to farking things up. In my humble opinion, a "Patriot" guards jealously the ideals upon which the nation was founded. Individual liberty and personal responsibility. If the mob can not deal with that or our Overlords not understand it, put them to the sword and be done with it.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by kia252

You know, that's a very good question. That seems like a problem with the Constitution more than my argument. There is the recourse that should a Justice(s) not act in "good behavior" and attempt to unduly expand their power, they can be impeached by Congress, a necessary check. Of course, the precedent for the expansion of judicial power would probably need to be overturned by the newly appointed Justice(s), since Congress, or anyone else, does not have the authority to overturn the ruling. As you have said, it's not perfect, but it's functional so far and must be accepted for faults as well as strengths if you want to argue the value of the Constitution.

No, it's not a problem with the constitution, it's the problem of the judicial branch doing what it is not authorized to do. The constitution does cover this as well.

As the lecture series pointed out, it is the people who are the ultimate arbiters, not the courts.

If that were the bigger question you should have asked it, so I could tell you that was not my argument. You asked how I could deny that people were blatantly ignoring the Constitution to get what they want. My response was that they believed to be upholding the Constitution, and even gave examples. They may be wrong, but that does not constitute blatantly ignoring the Constitution as much as having a faulty understand or interpretation.

I'm sure they tell themselves that and maybe even come to believe it but deceiving yourself doesn't make deceiving others okay.

But if these people are really that clueless about the constitution, what are they doing working in government in the first place?

[qzar9999]

Originally Posted by DalekSec

Individual liberty and personal responsibility. If the mob can not deal with that or our Overlords not understand it, put them to the sword and be done with it.

I call that a half-and-half problem. The Overlords don't want to give us individual liberty, and people in the mob don't want to take personal responsibility. So, what, then, do we put them to the double-edged sword? (Sorry, that joke was terrible...)

[kia252]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

No, it's not a problem with the constitution, it's the problem of the judicial branch doing what it is not authorized to do. The constitution does cover this as well.

As the lecture series pointed out, it is the people who are the ultimate arbiters, not the courts.

"The video says it's wrong, so it must be wrong" is a wonderful argument! I have explained that he cut short the actual process to claim false finality with the people, meaning they are arbiters, but not ultimate arbiters.
Yes, the Constitution does cover that the Supreme Court's power "shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States..." (Article 3, Section 2) and that the Law is "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." (Article VI, paragraph 2) which determines the Supreme Court's power is to enforce the Constitution as the highest law in preemption of all others. That was the foundation of the Marbury v. Madison ruling that such was their authority and duty through the basic reading of their enumerated powers and clarified duties as judges. Whereas they are given authority to rule in all cases of law, and the foremost law is the Constitution, which they are oath-bound to uphold (Articel VI, paragraph 3), then they must, by duty and authority, be able to rule when the Constitution preempts other law. That is far and away different from any sort of "because I say so."

I'm sure they tell themselves that and maybe even come to believe it but deceiving yourself doesn't make deceiving others okay.

But if these people are really that clueless about the constitution, what are they doing working in government in the first place?

Why does there have to be deceit? Because they disagree with you? God forbid anyone ever genuinely disagree with you. No, we are all but thieves and liars before your truth.

This is not about people being deceitful or clueless, it is about them understanding something differently for any number of reasons. They can be wrong, but that in no way suggests they are clueless or deceitful.