(Tea Party) Constitutional fundamentalists are wackos

I know it's only rock and roll, dude. But, I like it.

 

Right on Bro. Power to the People.

 

The will of the people, although that statement is questionable, does not determine Constitutionality.

 

It does when the scoreboard is 92 to 8.

 

I guess for some people mob rule reigns supreme. That's a great philosophy right up to the point where the mob turns on you. Good luck with that.

 

So slavery would be Constitutional if the majority wanted it?

 

Dude, if 92% of the American people are ever in favor of revoking the power of Congress to provide for the general welfare, it will be fine with me. No problem whatsoever.

 

If the majority was 92% it probably would, dude.

 

And there you have it. There's no point in arguing with such a mentality.

 

Fred figures he'll be taking a dirt nap before the dung hits the fan hard enough that any of it spatters on him, so what does he care?

 

I love MOB rule!

The American Constitution is outdated. Progressive Feudalism is where it's at!

Sorry, America was the New World and the new idea. All else is outdated and those willing to forfeit the rights granted to them as individuals and to protect them from tyranny of government are low down on the totem pole of existence.

 

That doesn't make it moral and it doesn't make it constitutional.

We are talking about the "will" if the people, not official acts of Government.

Government is a Republic, not a direct Democracy.

 

But here is my point you have yet to refute. There is no need for "92% of the American people... (to) revok(e) the power of Congress to provide for the general welfare..." All that is needed is for "two thirds of both houses (of Congress to propose amendments) ...to... (the) Constitution... (and then have it passed by) two thirds of the several states..." That burden is FAR, FAR less than " 92% of the American people" agreeing to allow Democrat violations of the Constitution yet Democrats could not even achieve those LOWER standard, so they lie and cheat and steal to get their way!

 

There is no evidence that such an assertion is correct.

 

There's more than one way to skin a cat, bro.

 

The sad fact is that if 92% wanted it, they would probably get it. It would be a sad day and I would have to start kick ass and taking names.

 

I don't believe it's outdated because judicial decisions have kept it up to date. However, much of the original Constitution was ambiguous. Maybe, they did it on purpose to impart flexibility. Maybe they did it because they really weren't that smart. Who knows.

 

I have accumulated great wealth in the system you consider Progressive Feudalism.

That statement is so ambiguous that just about anybody could say they agree with it.

 

That's sort of my point.

 

Dude, I'm very wealthy. You can roll back the welfare state and return to lassie faire if you want. But, I don't think you'll like it.

 

It's actually 3/4ths of the legislatures of the States and not 2/3rds and the people are not involved in the amendment of the Constitution at all. They never have been because the Constitution is a contract between the States.

There is actually no need for a Constitutional amendment though. What is needed is for the Supreme Court to reverse prior precedence in a decision that limits the federal government to providing for the general Welfare of the United States, which is what the Constitution actually states, instead of providing for the general Welfare of the People, which is not included anywhere in the Constitution.

 

What is ambiguous about this statement:

I'd say its pretty straightforward. The reason provided for the statement ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State") is irrelevant to the fact that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I don't know how people can have a problem with reading a simple statement in English and not understand what it means.

 

Actually very good catch! Thanks!

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution[/COLOR], or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states[/COLOR], shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.​

 

Yes. People are not States, the Supreme Court got that one wrong.

 

I'm not going to waste my time trying to interpret what is obviously ambiguous drivel