(Tea Party) Constitutional fundamentalists are wackos

Who cares about the original intentions. What they were 200 years ago are different today. OMG socialism!! LOL right wingers are truly tools.

 

You think the Tea Party cares about the Constitution? Who's wacko now?

You also display a gross misunderstanding of what you call "fundamentalism". If it's not specified in the Constitution, it's illegal for the federal government to do it. Not the states, not the people. Also, it doesn't matter what the Founders would have said about today. It matters what they SAID about today BACK THEN (which you'll find is alarmingly accurate. Statism is statism, always has been and always will be. Not as much has changed in 225 years as you think). We have a written form of law, the supreme law of the land, and if you're not going to interpret its laws in the contexts of which they were written, then you might as well not have the laws at all.

And here's a hint for you clueless looney loose-interpretation Constitutioner camp: the Constitution can be AMENDED. If you disagree with what's in it, you AMEND it. You can't just reinterpret the laws to fit your insane political agendas. You have to write your insane political agendas into law before they can be legal.

Please show me where in the Constitution the Federal Government is given the authority to force workers to pay into a broken system that they will never get paid back and can't opt out of called Social Security. Where is the authorization for medicare? If it's not in the Constitution, its ILLEGAL for the federal government to do it. Your opinion on it doesn't change the fact that its illegal.

 

And folks! We have a prime example!! ding ding ding!

 

Men who wish to preserve their right to exist for themselves care. Men who value reason care. Men to recognize what we have care. Men who know what you want care. Men who realize that your plans have never worked care.

 

It's the Rule of Law for our Government to follow and respect the US Constitution.

It's "insane" for our Government to break it's own Laws. The OP doesn't get it.

 

Nice strawman. Were you that blown away by my post that you were just left completely speechless about the fact that I ripped you apart?

I know it's a tough thing to come to terms with, when you realize that your fundamental belief system is full of contradictions, hypocrisies and error.

 

Only if you can admit that a lot of things that we take for granted today would have made the founders heads spin. They lived in an agrarian society, the fastest transport was a horse, and guns shot one bullet and took a full minute to reload.

I can't imagine what Jefferson would have thought of NASA, though I think he would have liked it, seeing how he was into science.

In general, I think government should be smaller and simpler, but I think the founders wanted the government to adapt to changing conditions. it's a framework, and when used as such, it makes sense. Libs are wrong to try to read stuff into the constitution that clearly go against what the founders had in mind. I just don't think they'd want us to be fundementalist about our understanding of the constitution to the point that if a type of law isn't specifically mentioned, we can't do it. That's not remotely logical.

meh, a pox on both your houses.

 

Substantiate, please.

Not for merely being rich, He didn't.

No He did not.

What is?

So did she actually say it or not?

Substantiate, please.

If this is intended to make me question your credibility, good job.

 

Yes, I agree. I think the founders knew that government would become more beneficial, evolve into an all-knowing, beneficial entity that could make decisions better then the people themselves.

Back then...people had to be free as they couldn't call the cops when the Indians burned their barns.

But of course...we don't have that problem now. We can depend on government for almost anything...from food choices, housing, transportation and government can save us from ourselves even.

So we need to "evolve" the constitution to create a powerful government capable of taking care of us, redistributing unfair wealth and things like that.

 

The times may change....Fundamentals, Principles, Unalienable Rights are eternal.......

“to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S.” that is to say “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” for the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. they are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. in like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. to consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct & independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding & subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. it would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased.

--Thomas Jefferson--Founder--Conservative--Hater of Liberals--Great American

Yes Tom might of loved NASA......but surely he would despise The Democrat Party of today. To see what his experiment in freedom has become.......

.....The Founders are owed an apology like no other.

.
.
.
.

 

http://theweek.com/article/index/202838/sarah-palin-base-law-on-the-bible

She says American law is based (or used to be based) on the Bible. American law is capitalism.

Then why did the church establish a socialist system?

"Acts 2:44-45 All who believed were together, and had all things in common. 45 They sold their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all, according as anyone had need."

Also, why did he get mad at the traders and throw a temper tantrum?

Mark 10:25: "It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."

The Bible.

Just as I suspected. "But as Sowell later points out, having a proven time-tested policy isn’t enough if we don’t articulate it. We need to remind people that tax cuts help everyone. And we should also remind the Democrats that many of the so-called “rich” they’re dismissing are our small business owners who account for 70% of all job creation in this country. At a time when we need job growth, we should not target job creators with tax hikes. Closing our deficit gap requires us to cut spending, but we also need to spur economic growth. With that in mind, the last thing we should do is hamper our economic innovators and entrepreneurs with excessive taxes, overly burdensome regulation, and more uncertainty. This is not a difficult argument to make. It’s common sense."

Sowell was a good economist, but you need practicality and morality.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sarah-palin-on-extending-tax-cuts-2010-12

I have no concern as to whether you find me credible or not.

 

A Declaration of (D)ependence.......

(D)ependent upon (D)ependents and their (D)ependence--The (D)emocrat Party.......
.
.
.
.

 

lololololol.

 

I'm not in agreement with with those that want a strict interpretation of the constitution nor those who strictly adhere to the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, but calling them "fundamentalist wackos" is wacko in itself. I guess what is "wacko" is subjective, but all I see are opposing viewpoints that I happen to disagree with.

 

thing is the "living document" interpretation is what allowed the Federal Government to get as big as it did. The right concept for this country is to have a very weak Federal government and strong state governments. It's a concept completely lost on the Liberal mindset.

 

Yep. A pretty simple concept for most rational, thinking people.
Unfortunately though, some people will never understand.

 

You are dead wrong on that. The only reason why America thrived until FDR was a weak Fed/strong state governmental concept.

 

You should read the Constitution sometime. The qualifications, at least according to the Constitution to be President are as follows:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.​

Now of course that definition of qualifications makes Obama ineligible sine he is not a "natural born citizen." A "natural born citizen" is a person born in this country of two citizen parents. Even if Obama was born in this county his father (if we were told the truth) was NOT a citizen of the United States.

Of course Sarah Palin fulfills all constitutional requirements to be President of the United States. So, like what’s YOUR problem with HER?

 

Please elaborate. I'm thinking Badmutha's post was very accurate.

 

I think he would actually prefer that. Tranquil servility is preferable to some people, and those types often bare their teeth in envy of those who choose to be free.

 

Actually, your link quotes her as saying it should be based on the God of the Bible, which is not anywhere close to being the same thing.

It didn't.

Nothing in the Bible says you have to mindlessly follow the apostles in every possible detail to be a Christian.

Because they were doing business in the temple, and dishonestly at that.

So? That can apply just as easily to a welfare slob as to Bill Gates.

"The Bible is the epitome of force" is a nonsensical statement.

Are you by any chance posting from a psych ward?

 

It's a person born in this country and/or of two citizen parents.

...I already addressed this...

 

Sure it is, if by "rational" you mean braindead, and if by "thinking" you mean drooling.

 

I Just can't believe SOME people don't believe the Constitution actually MEANS what it says.

The Constitution said what the government CAN do, they stated who gets to do the other things in the Tenth Amendment below.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.​

Please explain your confusion. As we really don’t UNDERSTAND.

 

Case in point.