The Left's newfound interest in the Constitution, and why it's important.

None that I know of "think" that.

However anyone born here is Constitutionally a citizen. You disagree?

 

I will agree with you that there is no divide se that Democrats or Republicans hate America just because they are Democrats or Republicans. People who accuse the opposite political party of hating America are just as wrong and as stupid as people who accuse Democrats or Republicans of racism soley on the fact them being a Democrat or a Republican.

So yes general or blanket statement are usually very wrong and very stupid.

 

And let's remember that thread was begun by a Trump supporter who is a self admitted fascist that doesn't believe in the Constitution

 

Show me where in the Constitution that it says slavery is legal.

Since you seem to know very little about it you might want to get a copy and read up on Amendmen XIII An XV. I might add that the democrat party was almost totall against both of these Amendments. Explain that.

 

Willya stop with that, please, it makes no sense. How in the Nine Provinces of Gehenna can you obey something if you don't form some opinion as to what the thing you're obeying is telling you to do? and THAT is ALL an interpretation IS, is it not?

 

So you DO understand that the Constitution has Amendments. I'm more than a little surprised. I thought you were an "originalist" . The original document most definitely recognizes slavery (3/5 representation)

You also realize that citizenship is granted to all that are born here,...true?

And that the Bill of Rights is not restricted to citizens only?

 

I do not think that my views really differ from yours about the second amendment all that much. The Constitution does leave powers to the states that are not given to the federal government and looks like we both agree on that.

I like your slavery quip in that I get a kick out of those who think that the Constitution should not indergo any changes but those types of closed minded "thinkers" will not explicitly defend slavery but usually take the chicken S********* way out and try to claim that it should be up to the states to decide whether to have slavery or not.

What is the really sad thing about those oeople who "think" that way is that the Constitution did not intend for the states to take away any rights granted to us by the Contitution such as freedom of speech or religion. Saying that the individual states have a right to impose slavery upon a people of a race is just as stupidly wrong as saying that a state can impose a religion upon it's citizens.

Funny how scoundrels and racists like to hide behind states "rights" and yes the Constitution to do that.

 

Btw, I should point out that I am a leftist largely because I believe the Constitution to be a very, very leftist document.

 

If there is no such thing as the " democrat party " how can it be for or against anything?

 

So he was not joking about being a Fascist ?

 

Obama just released 2 enemies of America right before he left office. Why ? Because he loves America?

 

Who are these enemies?

 

In it's time it was liberal or leftist and I get a kick out of the deep ( not) thinkers here who constantly barf out nonsense claiming that the founders were " conservative" . Do any of this "deep thinkers" realize that if the founders were "cknserbative they woukd gave been against changecand against the concepts in the Constitution that were radical fit their day and age!

 

What relevance does the Constitution have? Other than as a landmark that we ourselves disagree with? You have even other European leaders saying it's long time we updated it. If the Founders saw the dramatic changes in our country, they would probably alter it drastically themselves.

 

This is the REAL face of liberal progressives. They are not interested in the constitution, equality, civil rights, or anything else they are using to try and gain power. They are only interested in gaining power and this is how leftists have done it throughout history. It is not that difficult to figure out.

 

Looks it up !

 

I'm glad you asked this question. I cannot speak for all Nationalists, obviously. But I can speak for myself: What is America? America is that country that started with 13 colonies. The English-Americans who started with the colonies faced British Oppression and rebelled via the Tea revolts. And finally it came to a head with the Revolutionary War. In which it was shouted "Don't fire unless fired upon!" Which historically was the American approach to war.

After we successfully won the Revolutionary War, we had, as every other country to establish our legitimate standing. When we stood our ground in the war of 1812, it confirmed to the British Empire that the US would not collapse. From there, a few years passed and Manifest Destiny set into motion. The term "Sea to Shining Sea" encompassed the desire to expand across the American Land.

The Louis and Clark Expedition was one such peaceful undertaking(Seattle), and then the Louisiana Purchase. We then fought the Mexican Wars, expanding the late 1800's into the early 1900's. We fought them to succession, claiming New Mexico, California and Texas. After this, America's frontier
was secure and there was no longer a need for expansion.

And unlike former Empires, which held territory outside of their jurisdiction the American State was unique in its geographic symmetry. Especially since Eisenhower imported the highway system from Germany. From thereon, we can say the Union was geographically inseparable.

If you'll notice, in terms of its "land space", the US is vastly developed. The only 'development' in this area might be renewing our buildings and tearing down the old ones. Reconstruction to make sure not a single ghetto remains. That's my architectural vision for America to be the next Atlantis.

Domestically, we had the fight over the Banks. Whether it was a National System(in control of Congress), or a "Federal one"(in control of itself). During the great Bank Wars, Andrew Jackson had successfully led us out of debt. And therefore, in that sense is why he's celebrated as a hallmark of American Nationalism. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln also spoke against the 'Federal Bank' which essentially indebted the US through its war expenditures and interest payments. (There was also the assassination of Martin Van Buren, who was against the banks as well.)

Eventually, through the night(how else), failed president Woodrow Wilson sealed our fate into the Federal System. Something he long regretted after the fact that he had done it! And so, to this day we live with the Federal System.

Now, as far as I'm concerned I'd be willing to keep the Federal Reserve if it was willing to open its books to accountability, and if accordingly Congress retained the right to print its own Coin. If the Fed and the Government worked together, that would be a compromise between Federalism and Nationalism, and would be less of an upheaval..

As far as I'm concerned in Military, historically speaking our goals were to largely remove ourselves from the war. The reaction today, is no different from our reaction in 1914. I believe in building a strong national defense, but not necessarily having to use our military for those excessive purposes.

But geopolitically, our agenda changed with the rise of the Imperial Powers. We had then believed the only way to secure our peace was to "nation build"(IE: To make them democracies, if not by consent then by force.) This had led to numerous mistakes in our geopolitics that is the cause of the world today. Overthrowing the Shah led to the Ayotallahs. In order to "check" Communist Russia, we engaged in Proxy warfare. Which enabled the dictatorial regimes to build around the world as well as the terrorist organizations that would attack us in 1993 and 2001! And through ISIS, you can see the Pentagon has grown wholly ignorant and obsolete in its incapability to learn from its mistakes.

This leads to my rejection of the Proxy State theory, which was really created because the INTL Community renounced Colonization as a result of WW2. But there's no way ambitious Nation-States would let go of power and control. So they decided to claim proxy States as "allies". The failure of which can't even begin to be stated.

Our best Proxy State(in actually advancing our interests) is Japan! In other words, Japan doesn't bring any vulnerabilities to the US, such as the other proxy States had. There's no theater in Asia(insofar as China doesn't start anything.). We're better off with colonization than proxy states!

At least then, we could build the "occupied" States into a developed country(as had happened in numerous other periods of colonization.) In other words, war itself is hell but the rebuilding period has indeed rejuvenated countries that otherwise wouldn't have been rejuvenated. So I see where that argument has its merits. Despite this, I reject the 'valor' that the AXIS leaders put on War.

For while it's true that the rejuvenation effects of warfare essentially repair the State, it will never fully replace the lives lost or the buildings destroyed. In other words, you can paint over a crack in the wall but the crack is still there. The 'essential energies' of warfare, can still be summoned through other means. And thus, I can finally answer your question:

Nationalism(or Fascist-Technocracy) is the exaltation of our home. We live for the country's prosperity, we live for the world's prosperity. These things should go hand in hand. Not separate. America had sacrificed the exaltation of her home, for the exaltation of the world. And the world itself was not truly exalted. It could only be so, as long as America carried the weight on its shoulders.

But just as Britain alone couldn't do it, just as the USSR alone couldn't do it, America alone can't do it either. And at the same time, any political theory that exists on the basis of sacrificing a country's national interests won't last for long. Because it's not just the sacrifice of that one country, but of many countries.

Madam Le Pen of the National Front had very recently eloquently stated it well Multilateralism. It's not so much a war of Globalism VS Nationalism. But Globalism VS Multilateralism. A war between mutual cooperation of the States, and the forced "global" system that conscripts the Nation-States and the people within it.

To fully explore on this for a moment, we need to look at the two periods of history. The 20th century of Nationalism and the 21st century of Globalism. The 20th century of Nationalism, Human Beings recognized that they were apart of a continent, this continent took a life of its own and cultivated its own home. This in of itself individually was fine. But just as humans look to distinguish themselves, their behavior soon also became nationalistic: IE: They looked at other countries with envy.

You could then say, that the world was becoming 'Globalist' in the Nationalist order. Just, it wasn't defined at the time. The egg was starting to hatch. The major mistake of the Nationalist Era was too much selfishness, too much greed for what other nations had. Instead of appreciating and working to collaborate with their neighbors.

And now, we're living in the Globalist Era and its flaws don't need to be rehashed. It's simply the opposite of Nationalism: Too much disregard for the individual among us, suppressed peoples(and countries) at the behest of a collective whole that is not "whole" in principle. And thus, where politics and philosophy meets: Yin-Yang. They are two opposites, of one whole system. My Nationalism is to appreciate the collective, while preserving the individual among us.

In other words, if we serve the country first, our own prosperity will come. If we serve our countries first, our collaboration will be much easier. If we ALL have strong economies(ie: rejecting a zero-sum game), then we can prosper even more. I imagine a world where all of the world's scientists, mathematicians, programmers, etc all come together. Not through force, but through collaborative efforts. And I imagine this partaking in the US.

American Nationalism, is the preservation of this 50 State union not through a political or racial lens, but through an organic-national one that identifies strictly as American, rooted in its English language and peaceful tradition.

 

He is trying to tell you that he doesn't take you seriously because you appear to be so uninformed that you can't even spell General Mattis' name correctly.

It's been your signature line for how long?

It's "Mattis" - NOT Mathis!

For Pete's sake - just correct it!

 

He is not saying he believes it should be. Perhaps he did not word it well.

When globalists used their control of key sectors to shift public beliefs from the Constitution being the verbatim "law of the land" to more of a "theoretical set of guidelines", they stripped the teeth of the document.

Really, the ultimate proof, that anyone with decent cognitive ability should scratch their head on, is why did they need an amendment for alcohol, but there isn't one for drugs? Because at the time of prohibition, the federal government was still following the Constitution. By the introduction of the war on drugs, the globalists had turned the Constitution into nothing more than an artifact. Mainly via convincing the public it was, "up to interpretation", and then saying they needed the Federalist Papers (in no way the law of the land by any founding assumptions), as the golden plates to which only the traitors can read from.

 

"The Left's newfound interest in the Constitution, and why it's important. "

the left has always valued the constitution the right is the one always trying to violate or change it

the fascists want to take away religious freedom and force a theocracy on this country

 

Trump says he is gonna replace with health insurance for EVERYONE

Trump wants to do much that dems want... but says what many repubs want, we will see what happens

.

 

I love how the Democrats in California are now touting "states' rights".

Amazing.

 

The Confederacy is getting strange new respect from the left.

 

Thank you for correcting my error(or rather restating it.) Sometimes I word things in a way that's maybe too strong(or not general enough) and thus it gets lost in interpretation. Last Drop is exactly right. It's not that I dismiss the Constitution in of itself, the building of the Federal Republic was a middle ground choice between the loose confederation(their first choice) and a National Government(which was conceived as the only other choice at the time.) With the failing of the Continental Dollar, it was obvious that a loose confederacy(I argue, that it'd be okay depending on how loose it is) would not be able to sustain the new country(and that's all government really is, the stabilizer of a country.) And so they thought the Federal Government, with its designated powers would be in the middle ground between these two.

The Founders knew however of the social-political collapse that would emerge from the two party system and encouraged us not to group ourselves into a party. We should have heeded those warnings more carefully. But really, what is my highest form of discontent is what occurred when FDR put in his cronyist Democratic judges to the Supreme Court and thereby destroying the last shred of dignity the Court had(after already suffering from Dred Scott.)
When FDR politicized that which shouldn't be politicized, that is when the Constitution became 'open to interpretation' and thus lost its meaning forever.

Incidentally, Thomas Jefferson himself also called for the abolition of the Court. Because the "separate"(but unaccountable) power of the SCOTUS, utterly rules over the Nation-State called America. There are MANY structural flaws in our government that we've ignored(and created through our ignorance) to our deterrence.

It's a matter of organization. A tier-balance power structure(such as we've had), or a singular power structure? In truth, the tier-balance could be singular if we had one-party rule but we don't have that. No, we don't have that because of the Republican infighting. The Republicans aren't even a political party anymore. Make no mistake, the fatal wounds of the Republicans that the Democrats exploited are still there. The Democrats are just so destructive that many people are holding their noses.

So until we become a unified nation, the tier-system just exists to perpetuate our division. So we might as well become a singular, National State. And if we agree with the Constitution as written, great(I tend to actually support most of the 10 Amendments, if not all of them.) In factuality however, the constitution is rarely invoked outside of the SCOTUS for political purposes. So really, in saying the Constitution, I really mean I want the singular National State. Not the ineffective tier-system.

 

Most constitutional scholars will say conservatives believe in a literal word-for-word interpretation of the Constitution. Violating what is written is considered heresy by the right.

It's the left that often ignores what is written and chooses to "interpret" the Constitution to fit contemporary society.