Comments on: Open thread 7/3

By: DFB

DFB — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:09:13 +0000

“and old time” should be “any old time”

By: DFB

DFB — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:53:58 +0000

FDR in a nutshell:
After SCOTUS struck down some of his ag program,
“Are we going to take the hands of the federal government completely off any effort to adjust the growing of national crops, and go right straight back to the old principle that every farmer is a lord of his own farm and can do anything he wants, raise anything, and old time, in any quantity, and sell any time he wants?”

Pretty much sums up the difference between the parties to this day.

By: DFB

DFB — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:17:00 +0000

MH reviews standard Prog talking pts with:
“I hope your CONstitutional CONvention takes place. It’ll be great comedy.

No more habeas corpus, but concealed-carry will become mandatory.

No more trial by jury, but every sperm will be sacred.

No freedom of religion unless you’ve been born twice.”
_______
Funny, you seem to show about the same level of understanding & projection as Chas. Not once has a single one of these been even so much as hinted at…and even headed off such nonsensical ipse dixit, by pre-emptively discussing the fact that 38 states have to ratify any amendment.
Good thing is, you’ve retained your useful idiot card. The party can always count on you to faithfully execute regurgitated dogma without a second wasted on actual thought or intellectual honesty.

By: DFB

DFB — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:10:10 +0000

MH adds his pennies worth of thought with:
“All you CONs who claim to be “originalists,” sure throw around proposed amendments. (See above, re: CONstitutional CONventions).”
__________________
As usual, you add about as much weight in argument as a monkey fart. You lead with your “FDR was the greatest man alive, I wish I could have his lovechild” routine that’s standard propaganda for Progressives (or as BJ calls himself, Democratic Socialist..gee, so surprised an oxymoron). FDR was a POS. He LOVED him some Mussolini, Stalin & Hitler, sharing love notes back & forth, of course till it became clear that they too were POS’s, then suddenly had to shift the game. Well, at least he was nice enough to give Stalin E Europe to plunder for a while. Then there was other brilliance like price controls, wage controls, destroying crops/animals to prop up prices (while people were starving!), court packing schemes, detaining Japanese citizens/confiscating their assets, taking us off the gold standard, trashing contract law by ignoring gold certificate holder’s rights (weird, just like Obama with auto bondholders…), under the NRA created monopolies and let big business write the rules to crush small business, unemployment well into double digits for 10 yrs, complete freakshows in Admin like Rex Tugwell/Hugh Johnson/Walter Lippman/etc…
I could go on, as there’s so much more to be disgusted with when it comes to FDR, but you keep to selling your generalities, just sell them to your crowd who’s stupid enough to buy them.

Now, if you had a clue what “originalist” meant, your “thought” might show you are capable of thought. Originalist means that the Const should be interpreted based on its originally intended meaning. So, when the freaks on your side try to play the “living document” game, time to clarify the language you abuse, and cap the decision rights govt’s proven they can’t handle (ie, fed res audit, fed balanced budget, etc). As an originalist, proposing a Const Convention is using the method CLEARLY spelled out in the COTUS, not twisting some lame SCOTUS decision from an even lamer activist Judge who tries to create powers/rights/etc out of thin air by writing a paragraph or two and getting 4 buddies to vote along with him/her.

By: DFB

DFB — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:46:19 +0000

Chas swings & misses again!!!!!!!
“Ahh yess… the neoCon attempt to resurrect the old Federalists’ views… Sorry, guy, the Federalists LOST at the original Const. Convention… Marbury V. Madison still stands… It was NOT an amendment… Read Marshall’s decision very closely… It is an interpretation of Article III of the Constitution…. NOT an amendment of said Article…”
____________
Is there ANYTHING regarding the Const or history that you haven’t warped in that waste of space between your ears??
Federalists were the BIG GOVT crowd..you know..like yourself, freak! They were the Democrats in the 18th century (Hamilton/Adams). The ANTI-FEDERALISTS, were the limited govt/state’s rights crowd (Jefferson/Madison). So yeah, YOUR SIDE lost in the first Const Convention, Madison OWNED your crowd in debates! Washington/Adams (Washington was only person respected by all) were Federalists and chose Federalist judges, JUST LIKE I SAID, like Marshall and began their legacy of trying to “win” their Big Govt case through the courts, since they couldn’t through congress!!!
Again, why don’t you “read a book” very closely, instead of thinking you’re somehow showing some sign of intelligence by doing Google searches after I tell you what to look up!

By: DFB

DFB — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:37:23 +0000

Chas pukes:
““…Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;”

Gee, looks like the members of the Congress decide which Mode of Ratification would be proposed… hmmmm… Real hard to figure out, eh, DFB??”
_________________
My Hell, are you seriously THIS stupid???????? Congress gets to choose if STATES ratify an amendment with 3/4 of STATE’S legislatures or STATES’S conventions….what point are you trying to make, besides proving over, and over, and over what an idiot you are??? “Hmmmmm???”

By: Monkeyhawk

Monkeyhawk — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:44:00 +0000

“American_Way?”

Did you forget this thread?

By: Monkeyhawk

Monkeyhawk — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:47:30 +0000

Ask any Democrat, “American_Way” –

You CONs passed the 22nd Amendment and have regretted it. We Democrats think the FDR years were the best in the 20th Century’s (if not the nation’s) history.

Reforming the economy.

Winning a World War.

Health coverage via the workplace.

High upper-bracket income taxes.

A vibrant Middle Class.

The GI Bill.

Et cetera…

So, yeah.

You CONs convinced me.

Getting rid of presidential term limits would eliminate lame-duckness. Even for a Repubic Party president.

I could live with that possibility.

Remember how Newtie Gingrich and Toad Tiahrt promised they’d amend the Constitution to impose term limits on congresscritters?

No, I suppose you don’t.

It was part of the Contract With America. It was in the papers.

Now, before this devolves into nitpicking minutia and dueling links, go back to my original point.

All you CONs who claim to be “originalists,” sure throw around proposed amendments. (See above, re: CONstitutional CONventions).

I’m not sure Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) has ever been associated with “originalists.” That seems to be a CON CONcept.

Maybe you forgot.

By: American_Way

American_Way — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:42:10 +0000

Your link tells me a lib wants a third term president. Guess all “libs” want to throw out the constitution!

Your labeling and posts are indicative of you having a direct source of energy at the koolaid pool.

Happy dependency day!

By: Monkeyhawk

Monkeyhawk — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:35:06 +0000

Sorry, “American_Way” –

But when you guys play the “I don’t remember…” card, I believe you.

And when you plead ignorance, I really believe you.

When you ask for a link and I give you one, you complain that you can’t find another.

Google is your friend, “American_Way.”

Are you unable to use that search engine yourself?

Or are you just spouting off?

By: American_Way

American_Way — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:32:47 +0000

From Monkey’s link:

“Meanwhile, as noted by the invaluable FactCheck.org Web site, Brooks Jackson writes that Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) has already introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment.”

It doesn’t get any better than this. Go pour yourself some coffee Monkeyhawk.

By: Monkeyhawk

Monkeyhawk — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:29:35 +0000

The 22nd Amendment –

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2009/06/ronald_reagan_and_the_22nd_ame.html

By: American_Way

American_Way — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:27:49 +0000

So you have ONE represenative proposing legislation and that means all “CONS”?

I’m afraid your intelligence level is actually slipping a few points Monkeyhawk.

By: Monkeyhawk

Monkeyhawk — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:22:28 +0000

With only one link per post, this will take a while, “American_Way.”

“Thursday, September 16, 2004 – Page updated at 12:00 A.M.

Amendment would drop requirement that president be U.S.-born

By Jim Puzzanghera
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, an Orange County, Calif., Republican and longtime friend of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, introduced a constitutional amendment yesterday to allow foreign-born Americans who have been citizens for 20 years to run for president….”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002036961_amendment16.html

By: American_Way

American_Way — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:18:41 +0000

Monkeyhawk, I don’t remember any of those things.
Perhaps you have links?

Or are you just spouting off as usual?

By: Monkeyhawk

Monkeyhawk — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:07:24 +0000

For all their talk about being constitutional “originalists,” CONs sure get in frequent frenzies to amend the damned thing.

Remember when CONs wanted to amend the COTUS so Ahnold Governator could be the Repubic Party’s new Reagan?

Remember how the CONs wanted amend the COTUS so Saint Ronnie (in early stages of Alzheimer’s) could run for a third term?

Remember how, after getting their asses handed them five straight elections by FDR and Truman, the Repubic Party imposed presidential term limits… thus preventing Reagan’s reign for life?

Remember the CONs’ collective sigh of relief they didn’t get the Reagan 3rd Term amendment after all because it prevented a third term for Bill Clinton?

CONs are now talking about amending the COTUS on behalf of the “Sanctity of Marriage;” its most adamant supporters including a Repubic Party heavyweight who believes marriage should be a sacred union between a man and a woman… and another woman in Argentina.

I hope your CONstitutional CONvention takes place. It’ll be great comedy.

No more habeas corpus, but concealed-carry will become mandatory.

No more trial by jury, but every sperm will be sacred.

No freedom of religion unless you’ve been born twice.

By: American_Way

American_Way — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:26:07 +0000

My concern is holding a Constitutional Convention while demcorats control the government. I fear that with the states now indebted to the feds – the feds will dictate to the states any proposed actions. Blackmail or brute force. The Obama brownshirts are well on the way to solidifying power at all levels.

By: American_Way

American_Way — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:23:19 +0000

“DFB, as for your Constitutional (or CONUS in Chasist) Convention ideas, I’m all for it. We discussed this a couple three weeks ago, if I recall correctly.”

Yes, I remember that JJ. I also remember a certain poster who was ignorant of procedures to amend the constitution. Posted something off the wall not even knowing the procedures are in the law.

By: Chas

Chas — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:58:21 +0000

Now is time to give due homage to the Founders of this great nation….

good night; good luck; god bless….
whatever you perceive god to be….

blessings on the USA….

so mote it be….

By: Chas

Chas — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:56:16 +0000

“The silence of discussion on the ability to call a Const Convention is similar to the lack of discussion around how the SCOTUS managed to confiscate the ability to create new “amendments” in the first place in Marbury vs Madison in 1803. Goes back to the original Federalist vs Anti-Federalist rivalries present at the first Const Convention. Washington loaded the courts with Federalists, so first chance they got, they created the power for themselves. Activist judges are as old as the SCOTUS itself. John Marshall was one of the worst! And they’ve been doin’ their thang ever since…” [DFB]

Ahh yess… the neoCon attempt to resurrect the old Federalists’ views… Sorry, guy, the Federalists LOST at the original Const. Convention… Marbury V. Madison still stands… It was NOT an amendment… Read Marshall’s decision very closely… It is an interpretation of Article III of the Constitution…. NOT an amendment of said Article…

By: Chas

Chas — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:52:02 +0000

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”

— Chief Justice John Marshall

http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/home.html

By: Chas

Chas — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:57:48 +0000

“You might have seen somewhere today, Chas noted the similarity between between Communists and Obama.” [Johnson]

And JimJohnson continues his unbroken chain of daily LIES…. LOL Nothing new there…

By: Chas

Chas — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:52:42 +0000

“…Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;”

Gee, looks like the members of the Congress decide which Mode of Ratification would be proposed… hmmmm… Real hard to figure out, eh, DFB??

By: Chas

Chas — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:50:02 +0000

“Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, 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;” [Article V]

Is that not a clear statement?? You cant understand what that says??

By: DFB

DFB — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:18:17 +0000

JJ – thanks for the tip…I tried that this time with the “redistribution” comment…so maybe it’ll sink in.
Yep, I remember the discussion from a while back. Not a difficult concept to grasp, but it’s a concept that rarely gets discussed, and is never mentioned by politicians. If it is, there’s usually a chorus or two of “they’ll take my guns” from one side, and “they want to make women breeders!” from the other. As I’ve tried to lay out, the 38 state ratification requirement makes these fears null & void, leaving only the types of issues that could garner the 3/4’s support from states required.
The silence of discussion on the ability to call a Const Convention is similar to the lack of discussion around how the SCOTUS managed to confiscate the ability to create new “amendments” in the first place in Marbury vs Madison in 1803. Goes back to the original Federalist vs Anti-Federalist rivalries present at the first Const Convention. Washington loaded the courts with Federalists, so first chance they got, they created the power for themselves. Activist judges are as old as the SCOTUS itself. John Marshall was one of the worst! And they’ve been doin’ their thang ever since…