[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: The de facto meaning of the Consitution was, and continues to be, defined by testing it with actions. Source: Liberty's Flame URL Source: [None] Published: Apr 27, 2015 Author: SOSO Post Date: 2015-04-27 00:34:51 by tpaine Keywords: None Views: 1055 Comments: 14 The plain simple truth is none of the framers, signatories or ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution had a clear and accurate understanding of what the Consitution meant, much less was there total agreement on what the intention was other than to deliberately make the language less than definitive, to make the language flexible and subject to interpretation. Poster Comment: This remarkable interpretation of what our constitution means was recently posted on the 10th Amendment thread by SOSO.. Comments anyone? Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: All (#0) Here's a link to the thread : --- libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...? ArtNum=39297&Disp=33#C33 tpaine  posted on  2015-04-27   0:37:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: tpaine (#1) This remarkable interpretation of what our constitution means was recently posted on the 10th Amendment thread by SOSO.. Comments anyone? Yep. #43. To: tpaine (#42) If you have the stomach, learn some more. "The first test of the strength of the government founded on the new Constitution was made in Pennsylvania, in 1794, by a rebellion against the payment of the excise tax." The Whiskey Rebellion was the first test of the Consitution and it was done by GW in person. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO posted on 2015-04-27 1:06:44 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Edit потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   1:09:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: tpaine (#1) This remarkable interpretation of what our constitution means was recently posted on the 10th Amendment thread by SOSO.. Comments anyone? Yep. #42. To: tpaine (#39) Or by what is tested? Try to learn something. "Washington believed he had to act. He and his cabinet members met with Pennsylvania officials. They decided to present evidence of the violence to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court James Wilson. After reviewing the evidence, Wilson certified that the situation could not be controlled by civil authorities alone. A military response could proceed." Try to learn some more. "The Whiskey Rebellion also occupies a distinguished place in American jurisprudence. Serving as the backdrop to the first treason trials in the United States, the Whiskey Rebellion helped delineate the parameters of this constitutional crime. Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines treason as "levying War" against the United States. During the trials of the two men convicted of treason, Circuit Court Judge william paterson instructed the jury that "levying war" includes armed opposition to the enforcement of a federal law." потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO posted on 2015-04-27 1:01:46 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Edit потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-04-27   1:12:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: SOSO (#3) So? -- What do you imagine you've proved by that post? And what's with the russian lettered comment? tpaine  posted on  2015-04-27   1:26:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: tpaine (#4) потому что Бог хочет это тот путь "Because God wants it that way." Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-27   6:56:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: tpaine (#0) The plain simple truth is none of the framers, signatories or ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution had a clear and accurate understanding of what the Constitution meant, much less was there total agreement on what the intention was other than to deliberately make the language less than definitive, to make the language flexible and subject to interpretation. Have you never read the Federalist Papers? If not I would suggest it, it is available through the john Birch Society. In it you will see that the Constitution is well defined, well thought out and not at all vague. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-27   7:15:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: tpaine (#0) (Edited) Comments anyone? I think you should not have to spend so much time on something as hilarious and inappropriate as this thread. You really need to hunt down and kill the pigheaded fanatics you cannot get to agree with you. Bless your heart. Gatlin  posted on  2015-04-27   8:16:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: (#0) Sola Scriptura. It's a habit of mind that spills over from religion (where it doesn't work well) into jurisprudence, where it doesn't work at all. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-04-27   8:28:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: BobCeleste (#6) You should have addressed your comment to SOSO, Bob... -- Whoever he is, or was at LP. tpaine  posted on  2015-04-27   10:15:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: Gatlin (#7) I think you should not have to spend so much time on something as hilarious and inappropriate as this thread. Why do you bother commenting on an "inappropriate" thread, gatsby? You really need to hunt down and kill the pigheaded fanatics you cannot get to agree with you. I prefer to draw attention to their pigheaded fanaticism, thank you. -- And my ploy worked, in your instance. Thanks again. Bless your heart… How sweet. You're a prince. tpaine  posted on  2015-04-27   10:27:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: tpaine (#0) Learn something if you are capable. "In his letter to Breckenridge, Jefferson dismissed constitutional objections to the Louisiana Purchase by comparing his position to that of a guardian who exceeds his authority in the best interests of his ward. 1 8 He had to seize the opportunity "which so much advances the good of the country." 1 9 Similarly, in response to the firing on the Chesapeake, Jefferson again exceeded his constitutional powers on the ground that the emergency required it. In both cases, Jefferson claimed that unforeseen circumstances, produced by either necessity or opportunity,required him to exceed his legal powers to protect the greater good. Following Locke, Jefferson looked for ratification for his ultra vires decisions - "an indemnity," as he wrote to Breckenridge 120 - from the people through their representatives in Congress. 121 Jefferson explained his embrace of the prerogative more completely a year after leaving office. In a private letter, he addressed the question of "whether circumstances do not sometimes occur, which make it a duty in officers of high trust, to assume authorities beyond the law." 22 Jefferson thought the question was "easy of solution in principle," though could be "sometimes embarrassing in practice."'123 Jefferson's easy answer was that there could be a more important good than keeping solely to his legal authorities: A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of selfpreservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. 124" потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-05-04   13:37:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: Vicomte13 (#8) Sola Scriptura. It's a habit of mind that spills over from religion (where it doesn't work well) into jurisprudence, where it doesn't work at all. Religion does play on the way one looks at the constitution these days. First of all, while the constitution was always looked at as a marvelous creation of our Founders only since the Civil Rights era when the judges started to stretch the power of the court to de-segregate schools and in some cases raise taxes to do so (I think in Yonkers if I recall) have the conservative side taken the sola scriptura approach to the constitution and to even view it in a different and much more strict way than even the founding fathers did. It is no accident that religous people upset at the ruling that there is a right to "privacy" inherit in the constitution which is used to legalize abortion as a right would want the most narrow reading of this document. The other hot button - used to be in right wing circles in any case - was the reading of your Miranda rights. I recall conservatives HATED that ruling where the court forced cops to read perps their rights (Conservatives don't trust govt except law enforcement back in the day - hypocritical as that may seem now). These days not even the most die hard conservatives are trying to over turn Miranda in any way. In fact they want more restrictions on cops. Pericles  posted on  2015-05-04   13:50:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: Pericles (#12) (Edited) The problem is complicated, and it is exacerbated by emotion and the inability to think clearly or to step outside of one's own shoes. The essence of conservatism is "to conserve" - that which IS, is preferred. Who, then, are conservatives? People who feel they already have advantages from the status quo that are worth conserving. Peaceful countries are generally conservative precisely because peace brings prosperity, and with prosperity, more and more people have enough to be content with their lot. Not ecstatic, necessarily, but content. IF things are shaken up, they instinctively feel they have more to lose from the disruption than they do from the status quo. Conservatism, ultimately, is favoring the status quo. As a political movement, conservatism begins to weaken when a substantial portion of the population loses its perch and senses itself declining, relative to the rest. When that happens, SOME cling more bitterly to "conservative principles", while others begin to identify with the downtrodden because they sense themselves BECOMING downtrodden. And they remember the very arguments and platitudes they themselves held before. It is said that there is no more pro-police person than a liberal who has been mugged. The reverse is also true: there is nobody more likely to see the need for change than somebody who used to be complacently conservative who has had his world rocked and wrecked by the onset of forces beyond his control. When he hears his former allies standing in judgment over him, and realize that it is just luck that caused the meteor to strike his life and pass them by, his viewpoint shifts. When he encounters the mocking, bitter and increasingly strident tones of his erstwhile conservative allies, he comes to really despise them, and what he once was. That is the Achilles' heel of the conservative movement in America: we're still locked in forever wars we are not winning, and those cripples coming home, and their families, who used to be gung ho, but who find how very indifferent the government they once served is to them now that they're broken, how slipshod the service - these people change allegiance. People who used to have middle class jobs who find their retirements evaporating and their security gone - these people change allegiance. And in economic crisis, there are more and more and more people who are driven onto their last resources, who hear the dwindling conservative base crow about taking away the safety net. In the end, the conservatives do to themselves what the Southern Fireaters did over slavery, and what the KKK types did to themselves over segregation. Slaves and abolitionists will never abandon their position, but the Fireaters didn't have the numbers to win, and neither did the segregationists. So they fought literally to the death in the first case, and they died by the hundreds of thousands. Being dead, they were removed from the gene pool and what remained were the more calculating types who decided that being submitted was better than being dead. They predominated among the segregationists, such that they gave the ground rather than fight to the death (for it was clear that the rest of the nation WOULD send in the forces and smear their bodies all over the ground, as before, rather than compromise with them). So, now look at this "Constitutional Originalism". It's a comfortable conservative position for those who feel themselves to be in the catbird seat. Obviously Blacks, Hispanics, Catholics and Asians will never take any comfort in the thought that what a bunch of white slaveholders and financiers thought in 1787 ought to be the last word on everything in 2015, but there are plenty of white middle class men who feel they have something to "conserve", and who feel they are the kin of those old grandees. And so you have the "Originalists", the folks who treat the Constitution as Sola Scriptura. It makes sense for them, but the movement is fatally flawed and the water is draining out of the tank. The movement is fatally flawed because under the Original Constitution, blacks were slaves. Therefore, Blacks will never support Originalism in any large number. That status quo was bad for them from the beginning. Subtract 11% of the electorate. But women, also, are not the biggest fans of Originalism, and they're 52% of the electorate. White middle class males can argue all they like about the sanctity of the original Constitution, but not very many women are going to get on board with them. Sure, there are the Ann Coulters of the world who will. But they are in the minority. Women didn't have political rights under the original Constitution, and women are keenly aware of the fact that they obtain contraception and abortion rights through judicial activism on the part of the Supreme Court, and not through the regular electoral processes. So, what you've got is white, conservative, middle class men who are very comfortable with a more limited franchise that they used to control, pining away for the old days...and then you've got everybody who was screwed or politically limited by the way it used to be folding their arms and saying "Nope". As long as the economy was doing well and we were at the top of our peaceful Cold War game, it was easy to hold the broad white middle class center as "conservatives". Problem: the REAL underlying Constitution, from the beginning, was an instrument created by upper class white, male landed gentry. The plantation owners and financiers of the Founding Fathers' era were the crony capitalists of their days, but in a booming America that had more work than workers, it worked well enough for virtually all white immigrants - Blacks and Indians were always screwed, but had no political voice (and, in the case of the Indians, didn't want one or even know what it was). But with the financial crises starting in 2007, the wheels came off the cart for the broad middle class. Now, the middle class is sinking, rapidly, into the working class. Job security is a thing of the past. More and more and more people are reliant on the social safety net - and those who used to oppose it have been converted, by economic reality, into understanding that it was needed all along. The political base for conservatism has been destroyed by crony capitalism and free trade. What do we see here? A bunch of old retirees, all of them white men, all of them economically secure themselves, thanks to a combination of Social Security, Medicare, company retirements (in the old form), and money they put away. THEY still have their old allegiances. But they rage with impotence as the "originalist" belief in the Constitution fades away. It is fading away BECAUSE OF historical injustice (Blacks, Indians), coupled with women's rights (contraception, abortion, equality in the workplace) - now augmented by the economic destruction of the middle class through crony capitalism. The old Constitution failed in the Civil War. The one that has replaced it created a nest for crony capitalism. Crony capitalism reached its zenith in the 1990s and early 2000s with the dot.com bubble. But after 9/11, things changed. Real war, expensive and grinding, came on the scene. The Cold War was purely profitable for crony capitalists, and it was a great employer of a lot of working class men (and more and more women), in large armed forces that had the singular virtue of never being seriously USED. But with 9/11, the military started to BE used...and used up. Lots of death, expense, stop losses, without victory. The old affiliation of the GOP with military competence - raised in the Cold War - was shattered by 8 years of moronic leadership of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, McCain: the whole Republicans Establishment GOT ITS WAY on everything - they controlled Congress AND the Supreme Court. And they lost the wars, AND blew up the economy, AND left the borders open - all in the service of crony capitalism. Republican leadership was a SPECTACULAR FAILURE on every front where they always claimed competence: war, economics. This is why their attempts to redirect and make it about Obama are so frustrating for them: nobody cares. Obama was inexperienced and bungled some things...but he didn't bungle them worse than Bush and the Republicans did. And lots and lots of people see health care spiraling out of control. Is Obamacare good? No. But the Republican alternative: do nothing, is an utter fail in a country where the middle class is falling apart. Ideologically, the shrinking white male middle class, skewing old, speak in hallowed terms of a sacred Constitution. Nobody else believes that, and many whites who have been mugged by crony capitalism don't believe it anymore either. The REAL killer isn't actually any of these politics. It's contraception. The white race is dying out because recreational sex replaced marriage. They don't have kids, and the hole is filled in by Mexicans. Originalists will not change their minds. But they also will not change policies, because they are a shrinking minority. The alliance of the middle class with the crony capitalists has turned out to be a failure for the middle class. The net result will be the change of the system to balance the interests. That can't be done under an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, originalism will eclipse and become an increasingly minoritarian and irrelevant position. And the remaining originalists, aging white middle class males all, will rage about these developments as though the law of God were being violated. And then, gradually, with the passage of time, the voices will dim and fall silent, as they go to meet Him and are not replaced, because nobody wants to go back to the old ways, because they do not WORK for most people today. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-05   10:36:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: SOSO (#11) "Learn something ----- " By posting this thread, I already have. ---Gatlins comment was a real learning experience. --- "You really need to hunt down and kill the pigheaded fanatics you cannot get to agree with you. - gatlin" I prefer to draw attention to their pigheaded fanaticism, thank you. -- And my ploy worked, with both gatlin, and in your instance. Thanks again. tpaine  posted on  2015-05-05   10:56:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com