Obama blames Founding Fathers

[Jack V Savage]

Yes it is.

Nah, you just say that when you have no arguments (which is pretty much always).

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Nah, you just say that when you have no arguments (which is pretty much always).

I think I've only said that one other time.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think I've only said that one other time.

Sorry. It's hard to keep all the one-liner trolls straight.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Sorry. It's hard to keep all the one-liner trolls straight.

Gotta keep it simple so the leftists can keep up.

 

[UpaLoompa]

How about you read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Here's some stuff on the 10th amendment that ought to be illuminating. All from the wiki.





Now just because Congress has found it convenient to usurp state and individual power by abusing the Commerce Clause does not overrule the original intent of the Constitution to limit national power. The whole Constitution is a limit of national power because if it is not in the Constitution it has to be interpreted into it.

Now, of course this contradicts your gubmint is god worldview, but it's not an ideological argument. It's a fact.

This has essentially nothing to do with my exchange with Pan. Please don't interrupt the adults.

 

[Throttlehead]

In your opinion.

Was the Constitution really a clear well written document?

 

[OldGoat]

In your opinion.

Was the Constitution really a clear well written document?

Yes. It's not hard to read at all.

 

[OldGoat]

This has essentially nothing to do with my exchange with Pan. Please don't interrupt the adults.

And, once again, you are completely wrong and ignorant of US history. What grade are you in? I know public education is bad but anyone half awake in civics ought to know the basics. Your comments clearly indicate you do not.

Pop quiz time, what was the purpose of the US Constitution? Why if all power resides with the state did the USA need a charter granting it powers?

 

[Throttlehead]

Yes. It's not hard to read at all.

So why do you have to argue every day of what they meant it to say, what it does say, and parse every word to manipulate it to what you want it to say?

There isn't a day go by that someone isn't arguing about the constitution in the WR.

 

[OldGoat]

So why do you have to argue every day of what they meant it to say, what it does say, and parse every word to manipulate it to what you want it to say?

There isn't a day go by that someone isn't arguing about the constitution in the WR.

Well, just because I can read and understand it doesn't mean there isn't any incentive to twist the words around. Clinton provided valuable insight into that mindset when he asked, to paraphrase, "it depends on what the meaning of is is". Interpretation of language has huge implications for wealth and power.

I prefer a straightforward reading of the constitution with the additional assumption that the founding of the country was based on strong individual liberty. So if one were to err in the reading of the document it ought to be on the side of the individual or the state with regards to sovereignty. Others have darker motivations.

 

[Throttlehead]

Well, just because I can read and understand it doesn't mean their isn't any incentive to twist the words around. Clinton provided valuable insight into that mindset when he asked, to paraphrase, "it depends on what the meaning of is is". Interpretation of language has huge implications for wealth and power.

I prefer a straightforward reading of the constitution with the additional assumption that the founding of the country was based on strong individual liberty. So if one were to err in the reading of the document it ought to be on the side of the individual or the state with regards to sovereignty. Others have darker motivations.

And there it is with your twist on it, so apparently it could use some work.

 

[OldGoat]

And there it is with your twist on it, so apparently it could use some work.

It may actually be impossible to write in such a way that there is no ambiguity for those looking to find some.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It may actually be impossible to write in such a way that there is no ambiguity for those looking to find some.

Agreed. Words have multiple definitions and nuance. They can be misinterpreted.

 

[Hawkman3111]

And there it is with your twist on it, so apparently it could use some work.

The intent of the constitution is pretty fucking clear to everybody, especially liberals who try to say it isnt (because it gets in there way)

It defines and limits the federal governments power in every sentence.

The bill of rights expands upon this in case it wasnt clear enough.

Such an old tired dishonest argument.

1st amendment ensures the peoples right to say what they want about whoever they want (especially those in power)

2A guarantees the people the right to protect themselves (especially from an out of control government)

Freedom to worship however you want, the privacy of your house and property, again everyone understands this, especially libtards who try to pretend it means something else.

 

[second sight]

Agreed. Words have multiple definitions and nuance. They can be misinterpreted.

The problem is with the people not the words. you couldn't pervert the commerce clause anymore if you tried or how about the elastic clause?

 

[second sight]

the latest attack is "it's a living document"

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The problem is with the people not the words. you couldn't pervert the commerce clause anymore if you tried or how about the elastic clause?

Simply based on its numerous 5-4 decisions the Supreme Court can't read the fucker any better than the rest of us.

 

[Hawkman3111]

Simply based on its numerous 5-4 decisions the Supreme Court can't read the fucker any better than the rest of us.

Well the Supreme Court is part of the ruling class, it seems natural that some (or all) of them think the ruling class should have more power.

Power corrupts.

 

[Throttlehead]

The intent of the constitution is pretty fucking clear to everybody, especially liberals who try to say it isnt (because it gets in there way)

It defines and limits the federal governments power in every sentence.

The bill of rights expands upon this in case it wasnt clear enough.

Such an old tired dishonest argument.

1st amendment ensures the peoples right to say what they want about whoever they want (especially those in power)

2A guarantees the people the right to protect themselves (especially from an out of control government)

Freedom to worship however you want, the privacy of your house and property, again everyone understands this, especially libtards who try to pretend it means something else.

Sheesh man, pull up your pants, the ass part of you is showing.

 

[Throttlehead]

It may actually be impossible to write in such a way that there is no ambiguity for those looking to find some.

Ok, so thats why people argue about it every day, because no one knows the true meaning and intent of all words and meanings?

It just strikes me funny that the people in the USA argue about it daily, you don't see this kind of thing in other countries, they basically accept and understand theirs.

Is the court a problem? I can't imagine the founding fathers dreamed of having this much money in politics or the extreme of gerrymandering. These are small examples but very important ones.