(Tea Party) Constitutional fundamentalists are wackos

The problem is with their hypocracy which is not uncommon. They only want the parts of the Constitution enforced that comply with their political agenda. The examples of this are extensive although not all apply to every member of the Tea Party Movement. Let me provide some general examples.

They oppose limiting the role of the United States military to providing for the defence of the United States and support US military interventionism in the affairs of other nations and for the use of the US military to provide for the defense of other nations. If the US was not involved in foreign military operations or being used to defend such nations as Japan, Germany or S Korea and was solely used to defend the United States the US military budget could be reduced by 75%. Generally speaking "Tea Party Movement" members oppose reducing the US military budget by 70% and bringing all US troops back to the United States to act as a defensive force to protect the country.

Generally speaking "Tea Party Movement" members oppose the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by endorsing discrimination against gays and lesbians and denying them the identical benefits related to marriage afforded to opposite-sex couples.

Generally speaking "Tea Party Movement" members oppose the protection of the inalienable Right of Citizenship established by the 14th Amendment based upon the legal status or the parents of the child. The Right of the Child is an inalienable Right unrelated to anyone else including the child's parents.

A few "Tea Party Movement" members, albeit a small minority, questioned the natural born citizenship of President Obama who was born in Hawaii in 1961 but apparently never questioned the natural born citizenship of John McCain who was not born in the United States which is one of the two criteria required to be a natural born citizen of the United States as established by the 14th Amendment.

Many "Tea Party Movement" members are not demanding that the national motto of "In God We Trust" or a the revision to the Pledge of Allegence which added "under God" or calling for the removal of the 10 Commandments from government buildings which all violated the fundamental requirement that the US government not establish religion as established in the 1st Amendment.

Many "Tea Party Movement" members oppose the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade that established that a fetus is not a person but instead a potential person and support state and federal laws that violate this decision by attempting to establish personhood for a fetus.

The list can go on and on but the pattern is clear. "Tea Party Movement" members oppose enforcement of any Constitutional provisions that disagree with their personal, religous or political agenda.

As noted this is not uncommon as both Republicans and Democrats do the same thing but does reflect that the claim that they support the Constitution is false.

 

It's a shame that liberals like Montaya, aka **********s, haven't read and don't understand the Constitution. They've even failed to notice that it's been amended repeatedly and the liberal nitwits can actually find "abortion" in the Constitution. They see it there. I think it's call hallucination. Drugs do that if used to excess.

Liberals hate the Constitution because it stands in the way of the totalitarian socialist state they long for. Where are Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin when they're needed. We have to make do with a Hugo Chavez wannabee.

 

Proof please?

 

please respond to post 472

 

Coming from you, Montoya, that's hilarious. The proof is in your original post. You are living in an alternate reality.

 

Unconstitutional, not illegal.

Wrong. They had this funny habit of writing down the criteria and reasoning that they used for giving certain powers to the Federal government and other powers to state and local governments. The most important of these documents are called the Federalist Papers. If you read the relevant sections, you'd see that the Founders would have approved of an Air Force and an interstate highway system (via proper Amendments, of course), but not NASA or Medicrap.

Indeed. I'm particularly fond of the 13th through 15th Amendments.

Yeah, God forbid that we actually interpret something the way the authors meant it to be interpreted.

[/QUOTE]Unfortunately in todays modern times to do so would be obsolete and unproductive.[/QUOTE]

How so?

[/QUOTE]Bottom line is if your a fundamentalist then you are stuck way in the past and probably should not be in government.[/QUOTE]

Bottom line is that if you know nothing about the Constitution, you're not just ignorant, but dangerous, and have no business even posting on a politics forum, much less being in government.

 

You have one thing right, both sides pick parts of the constitution that they like and seem to forget the rest of what the document says.
For the rest of your post you seem to sink too Montoya's level, and apply broad brush strokes too a whole group of people, which is kinda disappointing, since you come of as a (*)(*)(*)(*) smart guy. Unless you've interviewed every single person who has associated with this movement, you have no right to apply a generality too them all.

Just my two cents.

 

Unfortunately in todays modern times to do so would be obsolete and unproductive.[/QUOTE]

How so?

[/QUOTE]Bottom line is if your a fundamentalist then you are stuck way in the past and probably should not be in government.[/QUOTE]

Bottom line is that if you know nothing about the Constitution, you're not just ignorant, but dangerous, and have no business even posting on a politics forum, much less being in government.[/QUOTE]

All of your points are wrong.

 

So what do you think about the 4th amendment? If not interpreted fundamentally, then one can justify language in the National Defense Authorization Act that allows US Military to be used to police the US citizen., because the world has changed, and the environment is now a terrorist battlefield, so they tell us.

Let us hope that those in the Military are constitutional fundamentalists, and will not follow any order to arrest, detain, interrogate (that word has terror in it) or use enhanced information retrieval methods,(torture) on US citizens, or for that matter on any other human being in the world. USA is supposed to be the light in this world. We are supposed to be the champion for HUMAN RIGHTS world wide.

 

I have tried to indicate that a general impression is not specific to all members of the Tea Party Movement and certainly the impression I have based upon generalization is subjective. They are "broad brush strokes" and that is freely admitted by me but those who identify themselves with the Tea Party and which disagree are welcome to step up and deny that the generalization is incorrect as it specifically relates to them.

As I noted there does appear to be hypocracy with the Tea Party which is why it's basically been rejected by the Libertarian Party. If the Tea Party movement was actually supportive of the US Constitution then they would have long since become Libertarians as the Libertarian Party Platform actually supports compliance with the US Constitution and is not selective in doing so.

 

Unfortunately there are too many instances of the failure of the US military as well as other government agencies to follow the US Constitution and even the laws of the United States. There have been exceptions such as several CIA agents that refused to use the "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by the Bush White House but they were rare from what I understand.

Of note members of the US military as well as any government agency are instructed to not carry out any unlawful orders given by their commander or supervisors.

 

The premise is an ambiguous sythesis.

There is a Tea Party.

There are individual people in that Tea Party.

There is a general statement (platform) of the group concensus that defines the Tea Party.

There are Constitutionalists.

There are Fundamentalists.

There are wackos.


Since it is not proven that all Fundamentalists are wackos, nor that all Constitutionalists are wackos, nor even that Constitutional Fundamentalists, or Fundamental Constitutionalists are wackos, ...nor even.. that all Tea Party members are CF or FC., nor are all CF or FC members of Tea Party.. then:

All that is left to prove is that Tea Party are wackos.

Since America is a country with all cultures represented, some say in melting pot, others say, individually distinct yet held together by the simple premise of a belief in as much freedom for all as possible... then, the term "wacko" is indeterminate.

Therefore: All we can really conclude is that Tea Party are just more one group of Americans, who exist., and have formed a group based on a number of principles they agree upon.

 

the constitution was not meant to be taken word for word.

 

I guess it just depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Get real. How else is it supposed to be taken? Our Founding Document is a standard by which we must hold our government responsible and against it all laws should be weighed. That is the only way a Constitutional Republic must be ran. To say otherwise shows us you favor the mess we find our government in today as the Constitution has been overlooked and thrown aside.

 

Many cite the Federalist Papers but they only presented one side of the arguments. It would cite the Bill of Rights which were a product of the anti-Federalists as actually being more important in most regards. Without the promise of the Bill of Rights all of the States would not have ratified the US Constitution. New York and Virginia being key States that demanding the Bill of Rights. Without these two States the Constitution could have been ratified but the nation would have been divided by them. Other State also insisted on a Bill of Rights in ratifying the Constitution.

It would be debateable as to whether the authors of the Constitution would have approved the US Air Force. It could have remained the US Army Air Corps under Article I Section 8. They would certainly have insisted on an amendment to authorize it as an independent military branch.

It would also be debateable if the authors would have opposed an amendment for NASA but they would have insisted upon an amendment for it. The issue of the government promoting science was expressly limited in Article I Section 8 by the creation of the Patent Office.

I doubt that they would have opposed an amendment authorizing NASA or even Social Security/Medicare but they would have opposed these programs without an amendment authorizing them.

The Constitution does provide for the building and maitenance of postal roads and roads required for national defense can also be Constitutional. That does not include all roads but only those required for national purposes which cross interstate borders. I-10 which goes from California to Florida could be Constititional but a State highway is not.

I would also point out that national parks and BLM land within a State cannot belong to the Federal Government under the current Constitution as federal ownership of land, excluding the District of Columbia, is limited to land "purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings" under Article I Section 8. Territories held by the Federal government, when that territory becomes State, rightfully becomes State land and not federally land under the US Constitution.

Personally I specifically support every Constitutional amendment that expands the enumerated Rights of the Individual and oppose Constitutional amendments that limit or infringe upon those Rights. I follow them all but based upon the Declaration of Independence the purpose of our government is to protect our Rights as opposed to infringing upon them.

Many "conservatives" that could be members of the Tea Party movement support a "Marriage Amendment" which I would oppose as it infringes upon the Rights of the Individual to engage in personal relationships of their own choosing by affordng special benefits to some while denying them to others. Personally I believe the legal institution of marriage should be ablolished completely and that such relationships should be solely a matter of contract law to protect the Rights of those involved.

 

Even after the election we see the wacko **********s saying they lost because they weren't "extreme enough". Please move further to the right, you will never win the presidency again!

 

Most of those that I've heard from in the Tea Party movement do not endorse strict compliance with the US Constitution.

The United States Constitution is a contract entered into by the individual States and subject to contract law. Contract law requires the enumeration of the conditions of the contract and the actions of the contracted parties, in this case the Federal government that was created based upon the contract, are limited to the conditions of the contract.

There is a ligitimate argument that programs like Social Security and Medicare are not Constitutional because the US Constitution does not enumerate any roles or responsibilities for the US government to be addressing the welfare of the People. Article I Section 8 refers to providing for the common Welfare of the United States and not providing for the common Welfare of the People of the United States. The US Constitution is explicit in using terms like the United States, the People, and even Citizens (a subgroup of the People).

It can be noted that the United States Supreme Court did not reach a unanimous decision in declaring Social Security Constitutional so even the US Supreme Court established the questionability of whether Social Security is Constitution. If members of the US Supreme Court believed it was unconstitutional, as reflected by the split decision, then there are ligitimate grounds for questioning it's Constitutionality.

This would not be questionable if there had been a Constitutional Amendment to authorize Social Security but even today there are doubts as to whether the States would ratify such an Amendment.

We don't have to go back over 200 years to address what the Constitution says or means. Like any contract it is current as of it's last revision which was in 1992. We also have numerous Supreme Court decisions that we can review, cite and even question as to what the US Constitution means.

The key to understanding the US Constitution is to understand that it is a contract created by the States (not the People) and that it's subject to contract law. That is all that really needs to be understood to understand the US Constitution. The federal government is a contracted entity created by the States and it's actions are limited by the written contract (i.e. the US Constitution) and the condititions of the contract (Constitution) can be modified it expand US goverment authority, restrict US government authority, and even abolish the US government under Article V.

 

Actually, specifically because a Federal insurance program had already been deemed unconstitutional previous to SS, the FDR administration argued it as a tax in front of SCOTUS while threatening to pack the court as a measure of intimidation but sold it to the American public as an insurance program. In other words, the intent of SS is an insurance program that would not pass constitutional muster.

 

Social Security doesn't pass muster even as an insurance program because it is not voluntarily entered into by those covered nor could the conditions of the insurance contract be changed based upon the unilateral decree of the Congress. If Congress wants to change the insurance contract it can only do it related to those entering into the contract and not those already under the contract. In short, Congress, under contract law, would be prohibited from changing retirement ages for those that had already been paying into the program. Congress would be limited to changing retirement age only for those that had never contributed to the program (i.e. future generations).

I would also note that politician are famous for misrepresenting the laws. Medicaid, for example, was sold as being a program to ensure that those without the financial ability to obtain medical services would be covered by Medicaid and that has never been the case. At the State level we've seen politician sell state lotteries as a means of funding education when, in fact, those revenues went directly into the general fund for spending on literally anything the legislature decided to spend money on.

Something I find interesting is that our government states that Social Security keeps people out of poverty when the average benefit is only about $13K/yr. Of course they can say this because the "poverty level" is established as less than the average Social Security level. If we used the minimum wage to establish the poverty level, and the minimum wage is based upon how much it costs to survive, then most Social Security recepients would be below the poverty line because Social Security benefits aren't typically enough to keep people out of poverty. That's why so many retirees on Social Security also require food stamps. If it wasn't for the food stamps millions of retirees on Social Security would starve to death.

 

I believe you are wrong. Congress makes the law so can do what it wants with SS to the point of eliminating it altogether. They are not under any contract obligations since it falls under the taxing and spending authority and is not considered a contract. They can increase the retirement age any time they want but usually choose to grandfather it in at a future date so as not to rile the public.

 

That is actually what I've stated. It cannot be argued that it is insurance as insurance is established by the mutual consent of two parties entering into a contract that establishes the conditions of the insurance. To my knowledge Social Security has always been defined as a welfare program and not an insurance program. Any politican stating otherwise was misrepresenting the actual law (and that is not uncommon).

Of note though there are some "contractual" provisions related to Social Security. I still have my original Social Security card and on the back it states I can collect reduced benefits at age 62 and full benefits at age 65. Legally is a contractually binding condition established by the US government when it issued my Social Security card. Congress can change what those benefits might be but based upon the written statement on the card I'm entitled to full benefits at age 65, Congress cannot, under contract law, change the age at which I can collect full benefits because Congress established that in writing on my card.

 

Youre full of (*)(*)(*)(*)

 

Facts say I am not.

 

Indeed. Fundamentalism, whether political or religious, is a reactionary ideology largely based on fear and ignorance.
They are undoubtedly the worst types to run anything.
Luckily, the high-water mark of right-wing fundamentalism and extremism was 2010. It took voters only two years to realize that those people were defective and not to be trusted with power.

 

I would point out that from what I've read from members of the Tea Party Movement that they don't generally support strict intepretation of the US Constitution.

For example generally they support US military interventionism in world affairs (i.e. the US playing World Cop) but the Constitution does not authorize that. The US Constitution limits the Congress to providing for the common defense of the United States and does not authorize the Congress to use the military to defend other countries.

Many if not most members of the Tea Party Movement endorse the War on Drugs but the US Constitution does not authorize the government to prohibit individuals from using any products or from growing any plants for personal consumption.

Many in the Tea Party Movement support DOMA which violates State's Rights under the 10th Amendment and denies equal protection under the law for legally married same-sex couples.

Many of the Tea Party Movement oppose the woman's Right to an abortion even though this has already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade.

Many if not most of the Tea Party Movement support detention of individuals such as GITMO detainees when no criminal charges have ever been filed in violation of the Constitution. In conjunction with this they generally supported President Bush's actions related to the GITMO detainees that violated the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

Of course I always have the simple fact that the US Air Force is not authorized by the US Constitution as an independent military force like the US Army or US Navy is not authorized by the US Constitution. As the Army Air Corps it was Constitutional but as the US Air Force it is not. Most Americans support the US Air Force, including myself, but there is no where in the US Constitution that authorizes funding for it.

What I've typically seen, in a more general context, is that Republicans and Democrats alike cite the US Constitution when it supports their agenda and then ignore it when it doesn't.