Which parts of the US Constitution need to have a more modern interpretation?

Ahh, I thought so, your dogwhistle for 'commie'.

But, trafficking in cheap shots and tired tropes is fine by your ilk.

I suppose we all do it, some, but you do it a lot.

 

He said "must run everything through a government bureaucracy", YOU decided to call that a "dogwhistle for commie", so since he called you a commie ( in your mind) you accuse him of a cheap shot.

LOL....that is utterly preposterous. That is an example of someone doing their darndest to make themselves out to be a victim.

Are you being serious?

 

Physician, heal thyself.

No, you didn't. You only misinterpreted what it said.

Either you are arguing for minority rule, or you are arguing for majority rule.

The federalist papers do not argue for minority rule, they argue for qualified majority rule, which is NOT minority rule. Proof of that is that during the 211 years from 1788 when Washington won the Presidency to 1999, the end of Clinton's second term, the minority vote won only once. that means design intent was majority on the Electoral College, and popular vote. The EC was designed to temper and other wise constrain the excesses of majority rule, but they were not arguing for minority rule. No doubt they understood that the EC might allow the minority to win, but they designed it to keep it at a minimum, which they did with great success.

[the]...fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22.

I don't give flying f*ck who writes your comments. It doesn't matter.
I only care if you are accurate which, judging from this comment, you are not.

 

Whatever

 

Nonsense. It's not that simplistic - it's majority rule with a few minor safeguards; ensuring that a few states don't have overwhelming power to effect the outcome.

And again no-one is arguing FOR minority rule. Each state apportions its electors in accordance with the ruled THEY make. And a majority of electors selects the President.

Means nothing of the sort. The national popular vote is defined nowhere in law. You're arguing a non-exist point.

Yep within the framework of the US government; the vote in each state is a majority win. The vote of the majority of the Electoral college is a majority chose. Hamilton wrote within the context of the entire constitutional structure.

If you can show that I, are taking it entirely out of context and contrary to the entirely of the document go for it.

This makes absolutely no sense.

You're the one who provided the cop out.

 

No, actually, it's an originalist position.

So you want unlimited access to any weapon of any kind that the police use? Whether that's a good thing or not, I really know, but I'm not going to agree on it unless I study the issue more.

No, 'statist' means communist.

Regulation doesn't equal communism.

Regulation doesn't equal totalitarianism.

Would you appreciate being called a fascist?

So, quit using the term to describe Democrats.

 

At least I offer some evidence for my reasoning.

What is yours?

 

What is your position, precisely?

Is this it?

You want to be able to own any weapon the police use, in unlimited quantity, as big of a caliber as they use, with unlimited bullet clip/magazine/feeder capacity? You want zero regulation in this regard? Is that it?

 

Thanks, for the update. They pay lip service to 'originalism' but Heller is anything but.

 

Regulation beyond a certain point become totalitarian of necessity. We, arguably, had hit that point by the early '80s. Since then we have added millions of pages and thousands of rules.

Statist is a quite adequate descriptor for a party that wishes to micromanage the entire country out of Washington DC.

The difference between a fascist and a statist is the spelling.

And no, since at completion communism according to Marx is stateless. Communism can not therefore be said to be a statist society, This however does not mean the supposedly intermediary point, the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be. Socialism is by definition statist.

 

While that is true, the constitution clearly makes it at the discretion of the defendant.

 

Sorry but its 2024 not 1776.

 

The "two known justices who can be bribed (Thomas and Alito)" is an over the top hyperbole and inanity.

 

Actually wrong.

 

Which has nothing to do with anything,

 

Sorry but it does.

 

No it doesn't.

 

Not hardly. Communism according to Marx is without government. Socialism on the other hand is by it's very nature statist. The only difference between a fascist and a socialist where the rubber meets the road is the spelling.

 

It's a fact. But it's also a good way for you to avoid addressing the point.

 

Sorry, no, it's a total lie. A bribe is payment for a specific action - list the action and the amount.

 

Thanks

 

Well, it's changing by minority rule. I doubt the framers intended for such an outcome.

 

And you didn't insult me?

Give me a break.

Physician heal thyself.

Fed papers do not argue for minority rule.

 

No, it's not. Every Senator and Representative was elected by majority vote and signed by a President who was elected by majority. It's that old representative democracy you guys worship.

 

True, the argue for the system we have.
NOBODY argues from minority rule. We have a representative democracy were every citizen is represented in both the House and Senate.