(Tea Party) Constitutional fundamentalists are wackos

Everything I said was factual. If you care to demonstrate otherwise... feel free.

 

You keep demanding that government expand, and what do you expect? Maybe you hope you can elect the right guy next time and he'll fire all of the bad bureaucrats and you'll finally get that central planning to work for you rather than for those in power? It's a fool's dream.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait. "The first amendment clearly states"? Aren't you the author of the rant in the OP that states, "It is impossible to interpret what the founding fathers would have wanted 200 years later. Part of the greatness of America is we progress with the times. A constitutional fundamentalists idea is that it should be interpreted as it was when it was written. Unfortunately in todays modern times to do so would be obsolete and unproductive."

So I guess the "impossible to interpret", "obsolete", and "unproductive" parts only apply to the sections that you don't like?

 

The first amendment clearly states this...As the supreme court has upheld.

 

LOL It's hilarious that you obviously didn't understand the point I was making.

The Supreme Court...a body created by, and whose existence wholly depends on, this "obsolete" and "impossible to interpret" document that you have so much scorn for.

 

No, because conservative posters who think anyone who is left of Reagan is a socialist commie. We both want liberty we just share a differnt view on how to achieve that liberty. The conservative group on this board doesn't allow for any discussion on different ways to achieve similar goals. Everything to your group is black and white, win or loose, capitalist or socialist, right or wrong. You group doesnt' leave anyroom for the varying degrees of thought or belief because you try to fit everything neatley into one of two categories, your way, or the socialist way.

 

Yes I understood. And my point was no one could interpret what the founding fathers would be thinking in todays modern world. The key word was fundamentalist.

 

It doesn't matter what they "would be thinking in todays modern world". All you need to know is what they wrote in the Constitution and why they did so at the time. If you feel that the times have outstripped the usefulness of the clauses then you advocate for amendments to bring it in line with the modern world, as has been done many times. You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose which parts are "obsolete" and "unproductive" and then ignore them out of hand while declaring that the parts you like "clearly state" something.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

That is the best description of the intransigence from the "Right" that I've read in this forum. Not that the folks on the "Left" aren't human also, but that these days to too often see/hear downright insane, stubborn closed-mindedness coming from too many Conservatives.

 

It's interesting that the Founding Fathers didn't actually put an expiration date on any part of the Constitution, don't you think?

 

The Constitution, unlike most statutory laws, is actually written so that almost anyone can read it and understand what it says. Where many differ is in how what is states is applied which is ultimately subject to Supreme Court interpretations. Not all Supreme Court decisions are perfect nor are they unanimous so even the Justices on the Supreme Court differ on occasion.

What we must remember is that the US Constitution was a contract between 13 sovereign states (nations) where they joined together to provide common services that were better served at a "federal" level than by each state independently. The Union of these sovereign states originated with the American Revolution and each state established its own sovereignty. The United States of America is often preceived as being a single nation but in fact it is 50 sovereign States (nations) joined together by a contract called the US Constitution.

I know, some will say I'm nuts but the fact is that Article V of the US Constitution establishes that 2/3rds of the States can call a Constitutional Convention at anytime, propose anything they choose including the dissolution of the United States, and if 3/4ths of the States agree the United States would be desolved completely. The Constitution is a contract that can be disolved at anytime by the contracting parties which are the 50 individual States.

We always need to address the Constitution as a legal contract because that is what it is. While it orginated over 200 year ago it has been amended by the contracting parties (the States) 27 times and it is always as current as its most recent revision just like any other contract. When parts have become "obsolete" they have been changed by Amendment to bring the contract into present times.

I happen to be a card carrying Libertarian and my position is simple. Follow the Constitution as written or, if parts become out of date or obsolete or if new roles and responsibilities are to be delegated to the US government, amend the Constitution as provided for in Article V. It is a reasonable position that federal govenment be limited by the enumerated roles and resposibilities delegated by the States through the Constitution. Congress should not assume roles and responsibilities as it has no authority to do so.

 

While there a a good number of nutjobs and wackos in the tea part movement....there are also plenty of intelligent people who simply push for less frivilous spening and regulations within the government to make sure the money goes where it needs to.

 

I disagree, corporate control of America will eventually end. I cannot as a moral individual simply allow the current system to win, I have to keep fighting.

 

Yep, I see that coming too.

 

By Giving the System more Power you're giving Corporations more Power. The Free Market/Capitalism is the foundation against the rampant control from Corporations that we see present today. Under the current systems of the American Government it has shifted from a Free Market Capitalist ideology to that of Keynesian Economics. Centralized Economic planning has always been the foundation of Oligarchies since the Dawn of Man.

 

It would be great if we could send Ron Paul and his constituents back in time and have them establish a seperate nation under an Articles of Confederation-like setting seperate from the United States. The basic idea of Constitutional Fundamentalists is to regress back to the Articles of Confederation era. The closest thing they can get to this is a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

 

I used to think that also, but now I'm not so sure. If we don't have a powerful-enough government 'regulating' things... the people would be silenced readily by the power and influence of the "wealthy".

 

How does that even make sense? How can a person simultaneously be a "Constitutional Fundamentalist" and pine for a return of the "Articles of Confederation era"? The Constitution didn't even exist during the "Articles of Confederation era", in fact the creation of the Constitution rang the death knell for that era.

 

Actually part of A1S9C1 expired in 1808.

 

A Constitutional Fundamentalist is really someone who emphasizes state's rights in the true meaning of the phrase, at least in the context of many Constitutional Fundamentalists in Congress. In a more pragmatic sense, their policy is centered around maintaining a literal interpretation of the Constitution so that the Federal government has less power. However, if you listen to their statements from their most vocal political leaders, most notably, Ron Paul, you can clearly hear that they are for increased state's rights and basically a complete elimination of rights for the Federal government with exception to monetary policy and national defense. Ron Paul basically echoed this concept in recent Congressional sessions.

I completely understand my history, but from analyzing constitutional fundamentalists, this is what I believe is their ideology.

 

The US Constitution is totally at odds with the Articles of Confederation. Your post made no sense and your explanation of that post made even less sense.

 

Easily explainable. Simply reference your alternate universe American history textbook and you will be apprised of all the relevant facts.

 

Okay, I stand corrected. But the rest of it has no expiration date.

 

I'm happy to discuss things with you.

But understand this. One of the ways the socialist/Marxist left covers their agenda is by trying to hide what they are and what they want by couching it in more palatable words like:

progressive
liberal
revenue
shared sacrifice
balanced approach

...and vilifying conservatives with words like:

astroturf
extremists
obstructionists
party of NO

Nice try, but no cigar. Not fooled. Not even amused.

 

The Constitution also says not to discriminate because of RACE AND RELIGION

but the GOP / "Libertarians" always forget that one!

I wonder why!