The Forgotten Founders

[Gipper]

"If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it's that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long." --economist Walter E. Williams

Liberty and freedom are under attack by the left. If they are not stopped, the end of the American Republic will be at hand.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Liberty and freedom are under attack by the left. If they are not stopped, the end of the American Republic will be at hand.

the sky is falling the sky is falling!

 

[Gipper]

"[A] wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." --Thomas Jefferson

And the sum of BAD government is the exact opposite of that stated by Jefferson and what we Americans have endured under decades of verminous progressive policies promoted by both parties.

God please help us overcome the intolerance and tyranny promoted by the left. Please help us elect freedom loving politicians who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law this November.

Amen.

 

[Gipper]

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Did James Madison miss something in the Constitution?

You might answer, "He forgot the general welfare clause." No, he had that covered, saying, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one."

If we accept the value of self-ownership, it is clear that most of what Congress does is clearly immoral. If this is bothersome, there are two ways around my argument. The first is to deny the implications of self-ownership. The second is to ask, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi did when asked about the constitutionality of Obamacare, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/12/08/moral_or_immoral_government

How far we have fallen thanks to liberalism and its many associated left wing worthless ideologies.

 

[PLC1]

How far we have fallen thanks to liberalism and its many associated left wing worthless ideologies.

Yes, by all means, let's go back to the way it was in the 18th. century. We don't need NASA or the FAA. We don't need any interstate highways. We don't need all those people with extra melanin or estrogen voting in this great nation. We need to turn the clock back!

There, see? I'm progressing in my anti lib education.

 

[Gipper]

Yes, by all means, let's go back to the way it was in the 18th. century. We don't need NASA or the FAA. We don't need any interstate highways. We don't need all those people with extra melanin or estrogen voting in this great nation. We need to turn the clock back!

There, see? I'm progressing in my anti lib education.

Another absurd post by our leading pothead.

No one said anything about going back to the 18th century, except you of course.

I see no progress with your illness. I think it is progressing at a rapid pace, which means a great deal of suffering is coming your way. That is my diagnosis...sorry....

signed Dr. Anti-Lib

"No taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant." --George Washington

 

[Apathy]

Another absurd post by our leading pothead.

No one said anything about going back to the 18th century, except you of course.

I see no progress with your illness. I think it is progressing at a rapid pace, which means a great deal of suffering is coming your way. That is my diagnosis...sorry....

signed Dr. Anti-Lib

Not really "liberal" with time comes changes and the founders recognized that and made the constitution amendable. PLC has a point.

The "conservatives" are no stranger to overlooking the constitution when it is convenient.

"What the fvck is habeas corpus?!"

-Abraham Lincoln

"The fourth amendment protects what?"

-Bush the Younger

" What do you mean? 'I cant declare war without approval from congress.' "

- Bush the Younger

 

[PLC1]

Another absurd post by our leading pothead.

No one said anything about going back to the 18th century, except you of course.

I see no progress with your illness. I think it is progressing at a rapid pace, which means a great deal of suffering is coming your way. That is my diagnosis...sorry....

signed Dr. Anti-Lib

No, actually this came from your post, not mine:

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Did James Madison miss something in the Constitution?

1794 was the 18th. century, was it not? I suppose only libs think it is. Here, I thought I was progressing so well. It turns out I have to understand that 1784 wasn't the 18th century. Becoming a non lib is so hard.

 

[Gipper]

No, actually this came from your post, not mine:



1794 was the 18th. century, was it not? I suppose only libs think it is. Here, I thought I was progressing so well. It turns out I have to understand that 1784 wasn't the 18th century. Becoming a non lib is so hard.

Yeah it is just so 18th century for the government to follow the Constitution. This is such a quaint and ignorant idea....right? That is just sooooooooooo out dated and silly....said with a limp wrest...

It is much better that government not be subject to ANY rules at all. Just do whatever they like. And the American people need to understand that our leaders today are so much smarter than those stupid slave owning sexist pigs who founded the nation.

We need to be ruled by lib elites not laws. Right?

Sorry to say, but your disease is too advanced. I can't save you. You should seek a second opinion from a brain surgeon. A LIBotomy might work.

 

[PLC1]

Yeah it is just so 18th century for the government to follow the Constitution. This is such a quaint and ignorant idea....right? That is just sooooooooooo out dated and silly....said with a limp wrest...

It is much better that government not be subject to ANY rules at all. Just do whatever they like. And the American people need to understand that our leaders today are so much smarter than those stupid slave owning sexist pigs who founded the nation.

We need to be ruled by lib elites not laws. Right?

Sorry to say, but your disease is too advanced. I can't save you. You should seek a second opinion from a brain surgeon. A LIBotomy might work.

Question on that Constitution: the role of the Supreme Court is... what?

 

[Gipper]

Question on that Constitution: the role of the Supreme Court is... what?

Look it up.

I suppose you think everything the government has done is constitutional because the SC has not said otherwise.

 

[PLC1]

Look it up.

I suppose you think everything the government has done is constitutional because the SC has not said otherwise.

Actually, I think it's the Supreme Court that decides what is or is not constitutional, not someone posting on an internet forum.

 

[Gipper]

Actually, I think it's the Supreme Court that decides what is or is not constitutional, not someone posting on an internet forum.

As I thought.

So, if the SC has not ruled a law unconstitutional, the law is constitutional right? I suppose one could believe this and one would be terrible misguided. After all the SC is composed of men and women put in their position by politicians. You may think the SC infallible. I do not.

Ever heard of Roe v. Wade or Dred Scott v. Sandford or a multitude of bad decisions and many decisions that were never rendered that should have been.

 

[PLC1]

As I thought.

So, if the SC has not ruled a law unconstitutional, the law is constitutional right? I suppose one could believe this and one would be terrible misguided. After all the SC is composed of men and women put in their position by politicians. You may think the SC infallible. I do not.

Ever heard of Roe v. Wade or Dred Scott v. Sandford or a multitude of bad decisions and many decisions that were never rendered that should have been.

Yes, of course I've heard about those decisions. I've also heard about the role of the SC in US politics. It is they, not you, who are charged with deciding what is and is not constitutional.

You can disagree with them, and so can I. They're the ones that Constitution you keep mentioning gave the power to, not us.

 

[Gipper]

Yes, of course I've heard about those decisions. I've also heard about the role of the SC in US politics. It is they, not you, who are charged with deciding what is and is not constitutional.

You can disagree with them, and so can I. They're the ones that Constitution you keep mentioning gave the power to, not us.

First you bring up the 18th century to denigrate the Constitution and insinuate conservatives want to return to the 18th century. I destroy that argument and then you cite the Supreme Court as if it is some kind of revelation that it determines what is constitutional. Then you claim I do not determine what is constitutional like that is some kind of revelation.

WTF!

You are all over the place. Can you lighten up on the pot and stay on point just once?