Please read the following and point out any one passage that supports the lefts' philosophy.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
For clarification of the original mindset of the above document you may refer here.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
For proof of the lefts' failed philosophies please refer to historic events such as the fall of the Soviet Union, etc. and the current events in Europe.
Then please purchase a one way ticket to Venezuela or Cuba so you may reside in your Utopian world.
Many of the founding fathers owned slaves,which was not condemned in the documents cited above. Blind adherence to the dim past & lack of flexibility just illustrates the "far right's-mindset.
Pity time travel is an impossibility-----"anachronistic crossdresser" could then go back to the 18th century. Barring that, I cant think of another country he could take up in, unless someone can think of a place that still has slavery.
That being, the position of the so-called "strict constructionists" vs. those who believe the Constitution is a so-called "living document."
Briefly stated, my position is more in line with the latter philosophy. The Constitution is a late-18th century document written for a very different world. If we take it literally, with no interpretation of how the founders would apply it to our current circumstances, it has very little relevence as a guide to what government should, or should not, do.
Of course, it is worthwhile to argue over how far to go, but if you say there can be no judicial interpretation of the Constitution's applicability to Congressional acts, then virtually everything done since John Jay was Chief Justice would not be valid. Are you really arguing that? After all, it was the founders themselves who created the Supreme Court. If that's your position, we would not have a government that could function in the modern world. Not even to provide for the national defense. It would certainly make the Patriot Act illegal. Be careful what you advocate because I don't think you truly understand the consequences.
Ps: The governments of Cuba and Venezuela are despicable. I have no interest in living anywhere but here, so please stop with the old "love it or leave it" lines. They were old 40 years ago. It's possible to love this country even if you're not slightly to the right of Attila the Hun.
Please correct me if I've misunderstood your position.
-- Modified on 11/14/2011 11:41:14 AM
I know you're a dumbshit, because if you'd bothered to read either the Constitution, the Declaration, the Federalist Papers, you find them to be (mostly) a liberal screed. And not just liberal, but for their time, radical leftism.
I'm betting you've never bothered to read any other Enlightenment literature either have you? Never bothered to read Sir Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, when it is THE founding document of American conservatism. Hell, I'm betting you've never even read Russell Kirk's take on Burke either.
You're aware, aren't you, you fucking dolt, that conservatism means supporting the status quo. There's a reason why CONSERVE-atives are called conservatives.
What was the status quo in 1773? King George III ruled over the colonies. A conservative would support complete loyalty to the British Crown.
dumbass.
You want support of the left's philosophy in the Constitution? Article 1, section 2 says House memebers will be elected by the People. That is a democratic idea.
Art. 1, Sec 9 protects against the removal of Habeas Corpus rights, protects against bill of attainder and ex post facto laws, and bars titles of nobility. In other words, for their time, the Founders made inclusion in the top 1% illegal.
And then, of course, you have the Bill of Rights. In other words, one long liberal screed. The very first clause of the very first amendment states, and I quote:
"Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion".
It gives everyone an equal (what a Marxist notion, eh?) rights of free speech, free assembly, the right to petition the government, and the freedom of the press.
It bars the gov't from searching your home, yourself, or what you've written without probable cause. It bars the gov't from trying you twice for the same crime, to testify against yourself, it guarantees a trial by an impartial jury composed of regular citizens, it guarantees a speedy trial, it guarantees you'll have a lawyer even if you can't pay for one, and even if found guilty, you can't be punished in a cruel or unusual way. Gee, half the bill of rights is to protect the rights of criminals. Yeh, that's a conservative idea, you dumbass.
The kicker comes with the 9th amendment that says that:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other (rights) retained by the people."
The reason why the 9th amendment exists at all was because of Hamilton's concern with having a Bill of Rights at all being interpreted to mean that they are the only rights we have. In Federalist #84, Hamilton said:
"It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the POWER OF THE PEOPLE, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants."
Here's the sentence that's clinches it all, you fucking moron.
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender NOTHING; and as they retain EVERY THING they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."
Wish I had said that.
These haters get their marching orders from fox news, and think they are in possession of the holy grail. This guy crossdresser 12345 is just showing off that he can count and spout. I GUARANTEE his IQ is at less than 100. He's a C student who thinks he got the answers to the test from his buddies at fox news, and he's eager to take a victory lap.
get ya' all riled and everything....
Pissing the hypocritical libs off......hehehehe......
bye now..... got to go be successful and make money.....
You assume that I am "pissed off" because I call a chimp a chimp? Listen, you little internet billionaire, we all know you live in mommy's basement and get every "idea" in your head from fixed noise. Long ago I traded in "pissed off" for "disgusted" when dealing with mental midgets and fake "businessmen."
Not one person on the board sees you as anything but a gadfly, echoing the talking points of others as if they were original ideas. The saddest part is that those you echo are THEMSELVES merely echoing others, who are paid to come up with the slogans they confer to you - and which you obediently parrot, you small turd.
The Constitution is a Libertarian creed, not a liberal creed. (there are similarities in philosophy)
The "People" are no longer in control or have a say. Hence, Tea Parties and Occupiers.
If everything you say is true why is more government, more control the answer?
No, sorry the founding fathers the current government we have in mind.
I assume you mean screed.
Let's explore this for a second. Is the US Constitution a Libertarian screed? Hmm...
The Constitution, the Declaration, and the Federalist papers were all written in the late 1700's hundreds, or if you ask Rick Perry the 15th century.
The Founders were highly influenced by Enlightenment thinkers, such as Hume, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Paine, etc.
Given the reality of the day, these people were highly critical of centralized religion, which is why so many Founders were Deists. Immanuel Kant's work played heavily into this. They were opposed to the existence of a top class of people, what back then was royalty. They had egalitarian attitudes. Both Marx and Jefferson supported the idea of progressive taxation, however Jefferson was in favor of a more radical form of progressive taxation, taxing not income, but PROPERTY. The Founders believed in the the Rights of the Sovereign, as Rousseau put it, meaning the inherent rights of the people to be the rulers of themselves. They questioned the purpose of government itself.
Taken as a whole, the Founders (well perhaps with the most notable exception of John Adams) were radical leftists for their time.
Were they libertarian? Hardly. Libertarian philosphy would develop for another 150 years. It would literally be impossible for the Constitution to be libertarian in origin unles Ayn Rand and her cohorts had a time machine in the 40's and 50's.
Libertarian ideals originated out of the First Internationale, that was a reaction to industrial capitalism. The Marxists were on one side, and the Mutualists were on the other. The debate between these two groups is worth reading, and got so heated that Marx tried to have the head Mutualist, Mikhail Bakunin thrown into a Russian gulag on trump up charges he put in his own newspapers.
Mutualism eventually developed into anarchist philosophy, with several of it's own side branches. There are minimalists, individualists, primitivism, anarcho-socialism, anarcho-communism, etc, etc, etc. The first time the term "libertarian" was applied to an anarchist philosophy was when French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque established a newspaper called Le Libertaire in 1858.
After the assassination of McKinley, many anarchists adapted the term "libertarian" to avoid negative connotations.
In the 1920's and 30's, economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises established the Austrian school of economics, and Murray Rothbard dubbed Anarcho-Capitalism. Quite ironic given that anarchism was created as a response to the capitalist industrial revolution. But it's here that the "libertarian" philosophy as we know it today was developed. Hell the Libertarian Party wasn't formed until 1971.
Nor did the US Constitution have any libertarian values. No where does the words "profit" exist. In no where does the Constitution establish capitalism as our economic system. It rarely mentions property at all, and when it does it says it can be taken away from you, you just have to recieve just compensation for it. Hardly a libertarian ideal.
If you bother to read libertarian influence thinkers, they have a hardy distrust of majority rule itself, while the Constitution is based upon majority rule, in elections, in the houses of Congress, and in Supreme Court decision. Hardly a libertarian ideal either.
When the Constitution was written, Jefferson was in France acting as an ambassador. Madison sent a draft of the Constitution to Jefferson, and on Dec. 20th, 1787 Jefferson wrote back to Madison expressing the following concerns:
"I will now tell you what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land, and not by the laws of nations."
Jefferson was so concerned about unrestrained capitalism, even in those times that predate the industrial revolution, that he wanted to make monopolies illegal in the US Constitution. Given that the Boston Tea Party was nothing more than the destruction of corporate property in anger over a corporate tax cut, one could hardly blame him. Jefferson lost that argument, as it was reasoned that since the states issued corporate charters, they would manage them, and prevent monopolies. And indeed, corporations in those days performed one function (like building a bridge over a river) and were then dissolved. BTW, our 2nd and 3rd amendment was the compromise over Jefferson's objection to standing armies.
But the clincher is that while many Mutualist philosophers had disagreements with Enlightenment thinkers (Bakunin's disection of Rousseau's The Social Contract is breath taking), the anarcho-capitalist/individualist/Austrians all love to quote John Locke's "Life, Liberty, and Property".
Strangely though, when penning the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson had a serious problem with this. He instead edited out a word: Property. He replaced it with a "Pursuit of Happiness".
Such a notion is radical in and of itself. No other nation, in all of world history has the word "happiness" in it's founding documents. Here, Jefferson states outright that the purpose of government is to secure the happiness of it's people. Let that sink into your skull, and consider the ramifications of such a notion. It means that whatever makes the lives of Americans happy is a noble thing for government to be engaged in.
This is a far cry from the libertarian fantasy of a limited government coming from a desire of markets ruling people instead of the other way around, and a government that makes decisions based upon sadism like today's Republican party.
-- Modified on 11/14/2011 12:45:05 PM
-- Modified on 11/15/2011 9:17:13 PM
wrapping oneself in the American flag, and if anyone contests your point of view, you call them unpatriotic. Or, having a Bible in your hand, and if anyone contests your view, you call them sinners. A very, very cheap ploy that anyone can see through!
The OP put up a post. I tried to respectfully debate it seriously. I got no response. Others flamed the OP. He declared victory and fled.
by calling his OP "needlessly snide".
Conversation 101.
And, I was thinking it was because he was just too busy making oodles of money, hand over fist! Well, not really! I don't believe that for a second, though that's what he wants us all to believe.
-- Modified on 11/14/2011 9:36:25 AM
-- Modified on 11/14/2011 9:36:41 AM
All I'm saying is that if Icki wanted to have a respectable exchange with the OP, opening with "needlessly snide" might not have been a good first impression.
If he is making oodles of coin, maybe he's hiring..que no? lol
cheaper to contract things out. Lots of guys willing to work and I keep several of them pretty busy.
I've taken on a lot more of the responsibilities and work to cut cost.
Saw the impending doom coming back in '05 and made some moves to insulate myself as much as possible.
Didn't think it would get quite this bad but its worked. The down economy has actually been profitable.
Shit, maybe I'll even vote for Obammy just to keep it going. LOL.
Since you saw "the impending doom coming back in '05," it must not be all Obama's fault! Who was the president then, and who controlled congress? 
The impending doom was with the housing crisis and the Fannie/Freddie meltdown.
Barney, Chris, Nancy, Maxine, and Frank were telling every one all was well.
The POTUS at the time tried to address it because they thought it was on shaky ground but was stymied by the dems.
Do a little research on the Community Redevelopment Act.
as you mentally masturbate each other in your little circle jerk echo chamber you have here.
And not that it matters but Ini at least puts forth an argument and opinion unlike the rest of you loonies.
It is apparent you loonies do not care about fixing the problems, only complaining about them and blaming everyone but the culprits. I have yet to see any of you put forth any solutions other than "tax the rich".
It was a good day, gonna take a few days off and have some fun.
Smooches and kiss my ass.
Not to mention, it was needlessly snide to suggest anyone who disagreed with him should go to Cuba. Methinks you are a bit to sensitive. lol!
Sorry I was just trying to help you with your communition skills to better enhance your online interpersonal relationships.. I'm all about the love you know?
If they mean it to be an inflexible 18th century document, why have there been 27 amendments which essentially serve as updates/revisions ?
The mind boggles.