GOP Getting Too 'Extreme' To Win Election

[Anonymous]

well let me rephrase my question oldtimer- do you think demanding that our Constitution be followed as written is extreme right, left, or center?

I don't think following the Constitution fits any political descriptions... Some right wing groups proclaim to be big followers of the constitution- with one party even calling themselves the Constitution Party...But one of the most liberal groups in the country- the ACLU- is one of the biggest proponents of following the Constitution-- the reason a quite conservative, very Libertarian ex-Congressman, former Federal Prosecuter, and former Libertarian candidate for President-- Bob Barr does a lot of pro bono work for them...Probably one of the more knowlegeable Constituion Lawyers in the country...
But I do know- as the world changes- and like I said especially in this new microwave world- more and more issues need to be interpreted by the Courts to see how they fit into this document that was written 200+ years ago- before the authors of it even dreamed of such things......

isn't this why we can ammend the document? so there is no need of "interpretation"- so if it is ammended and properly ratified them we would know what the will of the people is. "all just powers come from the consent of the governed" there should be no fear then in letting the people decide how we are to be governed,NOT some appointed puppets!

So you think there should be an amendment for each new issue that comes up?....To me- besides taking years to find the legality of an issue- that would just make the Constitution another wall bookcase size stack of laws- and takes away the the whole meaning of- and cheapens the document...Might make us more of a true Democracy- but we aren't one- we are a Republic...

Remember- if you think a SCOTUS backed law was interpreted wrongly- you can also have an amendment to override that--- if you have the backing...It works both ways....

 

[hypocritexposer]

But I do know- as the world changes- and like I said especially in this new microwave world- more and more issues need to be interpreted by the Courts to see how they fit into this document that was written 200+ years ago- before the authors of it even dreamed of such things......

So should the court interpret the definition of Natural Born citizen as times change and more dual citizens and immigrants run for office, or just throw the cases aside, instead of interpreting them on their merits?

 

[Lonecowboy]

I don't think following the Constitution fits any political descriptions... Some right wing groups proclaim to be big followers of the constitution- with one party even calling themselves the Constitution Party...But one of the most liberal groups in the country- the ACLU- is one of the biggest proponents of following the Constitution-- the reason a quite conservative, very Libertarian ex-Congressman, former Federal Prosecuter, and former Libertarian candidate for President-- Bob Barr does a lot of pro bono work for them...Probably one of the more knowlegeable Constituion Lawyers in the country...
But I do know- as the world changes- and like I said especially in this new microwave world- more and more issues need to be interpreted by the Courts to see how they fit into this document that was written 200+ years ago- before the authors of it even dreamed of such things......

isn't this why we can ammend the document? so there is no need of "interpretation"- so if it is ammended and properly ratified them we would know what the will of the people is. "all just powers come from the consent of the governed" there should be no fear then in letting the people decide how we are to be governed,NOT some appointed puppets!

So you think there should be an amendment for each new issue that comes up?....To me- besides taking years to find the legality of an issue- that would just make the Constitution another wall bookcase size stack of laws- and takes away the the whole meaning of- and cheapens the document...Might make us more of a true Democracy- but we aren't one- we are a Republic...

Remember- if you think a SCOTUS backed law was interpreted wrongly- you can also have an amendment to override that--- if you have the backing...It works both ways....

so you would rather that we are ruled by men instead of by law? :???:
having liberals twist the meaning of words and "find" new powers cheapens the document as much as ignoring it does. why are you scared to find out if the governed actually consent or not?

 

[Anonymous]

isn't this why we can ammend the document? so there is no need of "interpretation"- so if it is ammended and properly ratified them we would know what the will of the people is. "all just powers come from the consent of the governed" there should be no fear then in letting the people decide how we are to be governed,NOT some appointed puppets!

So you think there should be an amendment for each new issue that comes up?....To me- besides taking years to find the legality of an issue- that would just make the Constitution another wall bookcase size stack of laws- and takes away the the whole meaning of- and cheapens the document...Might make us more of a true Democracy- but we aren't one- we are a Republic...

Remember- if you think a SCOTUS backed law was interpreted wrongly- you can also have an amendment to override that--- if you have the backing...It works both ways....

so you would rather that we are ruled by men instead of by law? :???:
having liberals twist the meaning of words and "find" new powers cheapens the document as much as ignoring it does. why are you scared to find out if the governed actually consent or not?

Laws and Constitutional amendments are written by men too....And I much prefer that over robots... :wink:

To avoid misinterpreting the meaning of words- and a law --one thing I'd like to see the SCOTUS and Federal Courts do-- is be like many State courts, that go back and research the legislative and public testimony that was put forward when the law was passed- so that they can better get the intent of the law and what the lawmakers meant for it to do with passage of it...

 

[hypocritexposer]

To avoid misinterpreting the meaning of words- and a law --one thing I'd like to see the SCOTUS and Federal Courts do-- is be like many State courts, that go back and research the legislative and public testimony that was put forward when the law was passed- so that they can better get the intent of the law and what the lawmakers meant for it to do with passage of it...

so it wouldn't be extreme or radical to request SCOTUS "go back and research the legislative and public testimony that was put forward when", the qualification of being a Natural Born Citizen was written into the Constitution?

Looks like we both share the same opinion, yet you call me and others "extreme, radical or "nutso" for thinking it........

 

[hypocritexposer]

so you would rather that we are ruled by men instead of by law? :???:

are you speaking of "Democracy" or as it is sometimes known, "mob majority rule"

 

[Lonecowboy]

so you would rather that we are ruled by men instead of by law? :???:

are you speaking of "Democracy" or as it is sometimes known, "mob majority rule"

I am speaking of:

monarchy- ruled by one man, be it dictator or king or tyrant president

oligarchy- ruled by a small selected group of men

anarchy- where the toughest or best armed forces his will upon you.

and yes- democracy, where you are ruled by 50.1% of the men.


But now lets look briefly at a Constitutionally limited representative republic-
all elected positions come from the Constitution-
all elected people swear an oathe to that Constitution-
all authority, limits, and protections come from the Constitution-

so a law is written, yes by men, but then it must be accepted by the majority of legislatures, both federal and state, that law should be reviewed by all on the legislative, judicial, and enforcement branches as all have sworn the same oath to support, protect, and defend the Constitution from whence they get their authority. the law is reviewed by the sheriff before he might arrest you, the prosecuter before a trial begins, and finally it should be reviewed by a jury of your peers.
If you are convicted of breaking that law, you should be assured that it is Constitutionally correct as it should have been reviewed by all the people of the nation.

thus we can see the problem when one tyrant can become the legislator,Judge, jury, and order the execution of an American citizen.
we no longer have Liberty and justice for all.

and we see men of oltimers ilk backslapping them all the way. hoping he can pick up a scrap from under the kings table!