»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
GOP Attack On the Constitution
| The Alley |
|
GOP Attack On the Constitution |
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=540IX8R2mdg |
||
| © Copyright 2010 JenniferMaxwell - All Rights Reserved | |||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt OK.... Let's go through this for a second... Nationalized Healthcare... Nope... I don't seem to recall that being anywhere in the Constitution. Wall Street Reform... uh... Perhaps I missed it when I was in school... where does the Constitution give the Federal Government the right to close banks and financial firms... this would fall into the category of the Federal Government interfering with private industry... and not really mentioned in the Constitution, as I recall. Government Takeover of GM... uh... see above. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where the the Federal Government is permitted to actively take over any business for its own purposes... whatever they might be. S. 1790: Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act of 2007 (Barack Obama sponsored bill)... S. 1989: Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2007 Sen. Obama sponsored bill to provide a mechanism for the determination on the merits of the claims of claimants who met the class criteria in a civil action relating to racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture but who were denied that determination. S. 2044: Independent Contractor Proper Classification Act of 2007 Another Sen. BO sponsored bill. In NONE of the above mentioned items is the Federal government allowed anywhere near the issue, according to the American Constitution. [Edited - Ron] Amendment 14 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States The video clip you send us to does not show any state being unfair to the poor little children whose parents are criminals... it is the... wait for it... Federal government doing so. Amendment 15 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. uh... where does this give ANYONE the right to prevent felons from voting?? And, yet, that is exactly what the federal government has done. Gee.... Is this a failure of the Republicans or the Democrats? Possibly, it was the Whigs that did it? I hear the Federalists were not really interested in the Constitution... [Edited - Ron] Whatever it is, the first president to step around the Constitution was John Adams (Sr... Pres #2), and EVERY president and Congress since (and quite a fair number of justices) has followed suit. Again, if you are going to alert the Passions family to an injustice, then by all means alert them to ALL injustices committed by EVERY member from both parties. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE [This message has been edited by Ron (08-03-2010 01:40 AM).] |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“Birthright citizenship – to hell with the Constitution!” “So now we have a second Republican Senator calling for the “revoking” of birthright citizenship in the U.S.– in other words another GOP luminary who wants to copy progressive places such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, countries that deny citizenship — and even birth certificates — to tens of thousands of children born to foreign workers, rendering them stateless and vulnerable and at risk of a life of official non-existence. That was the policy Germany followed until 1999, when German law was modified finally to recognize the principle of jus soli (“the right of soil”), replacing the blood connection principle that German citizenship required previously. Before the modification, children of foreign-born workers in Germany also were rendered stateless – the law hit particularly hard the children born to hundreds of thousands of immigrant Turkish workers and did nothing to assist in integration or the calming of roiled race relations in post-War Germany. Of course, the German neo-Nazi and Aryan fantasists opposed vociferously the change in the law. Is this German experience what Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham want to repeat in the U.S.? And are they really content to follow the examples of the Kuwaitis and the Saudis?” http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/02/birthright-citizenship-%E2%80%93-to-hell-with-the-constitution/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'm unsure of your position here, Ringo. Are you suggesting that things have to be in the constitution for them to be okay? Like Corporations having the rights of people, for example, which is a fairly new piece of law? My impression was that laws had to pass muster as being constitutional, and could be thrown out if they were deemed unconstitutional by the appropriate court, but that even that principle had to be established, and there was and is some question about the existance of any such mechanism in the constitution. It was established by the 1825 Supreme Court Case Maybury vs. Marshall, and even now some people find that decision offensive and — dare I say it — unconstitutional. You might check Florida for problems with allowing Felons to vote and even, for that matter, some ex-felons. You might also notice the exceptions around poll tests and the difficulty of getting minorities registered in many southern states from Reconstruction till the 1960s. And so on. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
This is actually a case of rocks and glass houses, Bob. I absolutely do not agree with the people in power who are making those statements... the Constitution states clearly that if you are born here, you are a citizen here. If the President of Iran were here on a trip to the UN and his wife gave birth on the tarmac of JFK, then that child would be a citizen... regardless of how much we might not want it to be... and entitled to all the rights and privileges thereof. What I am simply saying is that there are people who spend their time dredging up everything they can about one side or the other, and will flatly refuse to acknowledge that their back yard is a garbage heap as well... even when asked point blank about it. BOTH parties are doing things that are against the Constitution, and that would be extended to include SCOTUS. So... we get it... Jennifer and Bob are complete liberals (not an insult, just an observation). Mike and myself are total conservatives. Mike fully supports the Republican wing of the government, as far as I can tell... the both of you are deeply in the pockets of the Democrats... me? I hate both parties, and have given up any affiliation I might have had with my former party of choice... Part of being a member of any group is to realize that your group is flawed in some way... from political parties to the Boy Scouts to the VFW... If you are not willing to discuss honestly the faults you have and the faults that the others have (as well as the good points) and what it is going to take to make things better... then the challenges are going to go away, and no one, including yourselves is going to be anything but a part of the hassles. I gave you one current scandal involving the Republicans, and am more than willing to share more about Miss Nancy and her loyal arm-twisted minions... Now... how about we start a thread where we discuss what can be done by BOTH houses and both sides to fix the mess that Geo II and BO the 1st have gotten us into. Leave the petty bickering and fighting to the professionals Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Please remove my name from the line where you refer to me as a "complete liberal". Thanks! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I certainly am a Liberal, but I suspect that you, Ringo, may be having some trouble with your understanding of the term, at least with the way I grew up with it. You may also have missed my criticisms of some aspects of the Obama administration on the basis of civil Liberty violations, The PATRIOT Act, POW violations, difficulty with signing the Convention of the Rights of The Child and so on. I do appreciate the stance that you're taking about looking at both parties at this point and actually find a lot to admire in what you're saying. And yes, I am a Democrat as well. One of the things we spoke about in social work school was how, in many ways, FDR was forced into the New Deal in the Thirties, not because his inclination went in that direction, but because he found himself head of a country about two inches ahead of a Left Wing Revolution, and this was what he had to do to head it off. My teachers there, at Simmons, were pretty well convinced of it and they made an interesting case. FDR certainly hadn't shown himself very Liberal in his career prior to becoming President. Maybe the Polio changed his mind. Who knows? Anyway, I liked your post a lot. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Jennifer- As I stated, there was absolutely no intention of insult, and I will apologize for any misunderstanding; however, I would ask you to prove me wrong. Where have you ever posted anything political that glorified any thought other than that espoused by the liberal democratic wing of the American Federal Government? When have you not posted anything involving a Conservative, or a Republican that wasn't for the sole purpose of showing them in a poor light? When have you ever posted anything positive about anyone or any organization that disagreed with the liberal or Democratic talking points? By "complete liberal", I am simply showing that- by my feeble recollections of our debates on these pages- your thoughts and opinions as you have expressed them here are completely in line with what the liberal wing of government has shown their thoughts to be. I have, many times, mentioned that I felt your thoughts were wrong, or misguided, or even completely lacking any merit, yet I have never denied you the right to have those thoughts, nor the right to express them respectfully. If you feel that using the phrase in that light, and with those intentions is an insult, then I would ask that you explain why that would be? Why would you consider the fact that I am respectfully acknowledging that your political opinions are... uh... exactly what they appear to be... an insult? I might be a lowly Conservative and former Republican; however, I don't understand. Bob- According to whichever website I pulled it off of, the term "liberal" means: 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. 2. noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform. 3. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. 4. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers. 5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners. 6. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. –noun a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion. From what I have seen on here, you match most of these definitions. I will apologize if I misread your words. I did miss the posts where you expressed disappointment at the current administration, as I do not read every post, and as I have not really been in the Alley in a bit. I apologize again for misrepresenting your words, had I done so. Again, no disrespect intended. As for editing... when last I posted regularly, the posts were not able to be self-edited after 24 hours, and it is gone that. Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"As for editing... when last I posted regularly, the posts were not able to be self-edited after 24 hours, and it is gone that." - Ringo You still have time, Ringo, won't be 24 hours until tomorrow am. But don't worry about it, if nothing else the line good for a chuckle. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I applaud your response and your reasoning,Ringo. You spelled it out very well. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Good on spelling, not so good on math.  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Try the notion of Liberal as in "a Liberal Education," which emphasizes openmided consideration of all ideas, including the ideas of people with whom you may disagree. A willingness to hear what others have to say and consider their point of view and to modify your own point of view if you find it inconsistent with reality, truth and your guiding philosophical values. An interest in the form of the discussion, making sure that the reasoning is straight and clean and not spurious, so that the conclusions reached in the discussion may be most likely to be accurate and trustworthy. A belief in reason as one of the cornerstones of discourse, and a skepticism not only of others but of one's self and one's own motives. A willingness to advocate for the good of the human community as a whole as part of one's philosophical values, reflecting the historical religious commitments we find in western civilization. A respect for the rights of the individual and and understanding of the difficulty in balancing the sometimes contradictory requirements of these forces.. It's not as snazzy or as brief a definition as the ones you've managed to come up with, all of them excellent, by the way, but it's the beginning of some thinking on the matter. What is your reaction here? Should you wish to share it, of course. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
