(Tea Party) Constitutional fundamentalists are wackos

Madison would never have found it necessary to make those statements if reasonable men hadn't reasonably interpreted the Constitution to grant Congress broad power to provide for the general welfare.

 

Dude, the issue has been decided. You're not going to turn back the clock.

Start a petition for an amendment to the Constitution that deprives Congress of the power to provide for the general welfare or one that terminates our System of Social Security. Good luck with that, dude.

 

One can reasonably interpret the Second Amendment to grant a right to keep and bear arms only to defend the government.

Of course, the Second Amendment is so absurdly ambiguous, it could mean a lot of things.

 

That's subjective, is it not? Madison clearly didn't find them reasonable at all...and he knew a thing or two about the Constitution.

I guess enumerating Congressional powers was just for shiggles? Mere suggestions maybe?

 

Dude, don't tell me what to do, dude. You fight your battles in the way that pleases you, and I'll fight mine. Dude.

 

Dude, the clause is ambiguous. Maybe they did it intentionally, maybe they didn't. The founding fathers argued over it's meaning. One side won, one side lost. It wasn't a matter of a right or wrong construction. The issue is what the people wanted.

The people wanted the Congress to have broad power to provide for the general welfare.

Look at the votes in Congress on the Social Security Act of 1935. 449 Congressmen voted in favor of it. Only 39 voted against it.

It was overwhelming, dude. 92% in favor. 8% opposed.

PS: Every Congressman who voted no was defeated the next time there was an election.

 

Again, you argue for an unlimited government for which you provide no historical evidence like a child whines (talk in a tearful manner) to get their own way. They figure that if they scream loud enough their delusional view of reality will became true. The second amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What is ambiguous bout the word "people?" The militia is NOT the government, or the professional military of the United Sates by definition. Your continuous arguments against reality are making you look and sound silly. There is nothing “ambiguous” about that.

am•big•u•ous   /æmˈbɪgyuəs/ Show Spelled
[am-big-yoo-uhs] Show IPA

–adjective
1. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambiguous?o=100084&qsrc=2871&l=dir




mi•li•tia   /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Show Spelled
[mi-lish-uh] Show IPA

–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia?o=100084




peo•ple   /ˈpipəl/ Show Spelled
[pee-puhl] Show IPA
noun, plural -ples for 4, verb, -pled, -pling.
–noun
1. persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; what will people think?
2. persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help.
3. human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
EXPAND
4. the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of australia; the Jewish people.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/people?o=100084​

Want to provide some historical evidence or normally acceptable societal definitions to prove you point? If so go ahead and post. Otherwise, I just couldn’t imagine so embarrassing myself in public by arguing against established reality…

 

Dude, I don't see anywhere where "the people" wanted the Congress to have broad powers at all. In fact, dude, limited powers were sort of, ya' know, like the impetus for the whole thing. YanowutImeandude?

 

Look at the votes in Congress on the Social Security Act of 1935. 449 Congressmen voted in favor of it. Only 39 voted against it.

It was overwhelming, dude. 92% in favor. 8% opposed.

 

What was the tally for the Patriot Act, dude?

 

People who use the word "dude" are trite, and out of the contemporary element. Why not use the word "groovy," it is just as out of touch.

 

Dunno, dude. Ask Fred in Texas, dude.

 

Dude, the Second Amendment is so polysemous, I wouldn't even attempt to ascertain it's meaning. The prevailing interpretation is within the very wide boundaries established by the ridiculously ambiguous language of the Amendment, and is just fine with me.

 

Appropriate representative of your POV, I think. Your fate will be the same as his, I'd wager.

 

So, in other words, you misattributed the quote to Patrick Henry.

Pretty sloppy. Dude.

 

That is so deep, man. You're a far out groovy, dude.

 

Hell if I know, dude.

 

Well I'll tell you then. Congress was overwhelmingly in favor of it. Does that make it constitutional?

 

And your point? Congress was made op 322 Democrats and only 103 Republicans. We are not a DEMOCRACY no matter what propaganda the Left teaches in school. We are a Constitutional Republic; a "democracy with rules." Those rules are the Constitution. If your argument had any legitimacy you would be arguing the Constitutional authority to pass Social Security, which of course there is none.

le•git•i•mate   /adj., n. lɪˈdʒɪtəmɪt; v. lɪˈdʒɪtəˌmeɪt/
[adj., n. li-jit-uh-mit; v. li-jit-uh-meyt]
adjective, verb, -mat•ed, -mat•ing, noun
–adjective
1. according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner.
2. in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
3. born in wedlock or of legally married parents: legitimate children.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legitimate​

​

 

Yea, BS! If the meaning is so "polysemous" state possible DIFFERENT definitions than the ones I have posted. Leftists always try and argue against established reality. Their acts of whiny delusion are not becoming to We the People.

Prove me wrong. Post evidence to the contrary, contrary to my assertion that you have no historical bases for your opinion, and that "opinion" is only a fit of fancy with no bearing on realty whatsoever...

I have asked for such evidence before, and you have continually refused by lack of action to provide such proof. Why not? History preventing “your view” of reality?

 

Nope, it was Constitutional when the Supreme Court bowed to the will of an overwhelming super majority of the people.

 

Your request is denied. Tell us how your petition drive is going.

 

Oath of the Justices to the Supreme Court just to once again disprove YOUR version of reality.

​

I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."​

Siding with an "overwhelming super majority of the people" against the Constitution is a violation of their oath to rule "...under the Constitution and laws of the United States...," and a violation of federal law (Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code).

The "overwhelming super majority of the people" argument is of course BS since such an "overwhelming super majority of the people" was not used to get a proper constitutional amendment under Article V. Didn't you once say you were a lawyer? IF so do you not know constitutional law?

 

Pretty good considering all the seats Republicans and/or Tea Party candidates won across the country in the last election. The Tea Party thinks they got a raw deal with the debt ceiling increase which will energize them even more.

The Anti-Constitutionalist philosophy is built on lies, threats, and coercion. Such illegitimate paradigms only need be subjected to public will to collapse.

Any activist justice in any court can be impeached for ruling against the Constitution with the correct political will in Congress.

 

Still can't "Post evidence to the contrary, contrary to my assertion that you have no historical bases for your opinion, and that "opinion" is only a fit of fancy with no bearing on realty whatsoever...?"