Overturn the Constitution?

[Peter King]

I'm watching this latest tantrum by Democrats on the house floor and they are demanding a closing of "loopholes" even though the method they are supporting is Unconstitutional. They are claiming that their proposals are supported by 90% of the public. So I ask, if 90% of the public chooses to negate the Constitution should we just accept their proposal?

Since I'm currently on tapatalk I can't add the poll but it's a simple yes or no with an explanation.

No, there is no need to "overthrow" the constitution but maybe a new revised constitution can be made to take in a lot of issues that the founding fathers never even thought of (because it was not an issue in their times or not even existent, like the internet, movies, cd's, etc. etc. etc.) through a legislative convention of political leaders, senators, congressmen/women from all states and with the help of experts and legal professionals in creating laws, to revise the new constitution.

And then the people have the decision to make whether or not adapt a new one or keep the original one instead.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Nice cut and paste...but where did you get it from?

Google it. It will come back to DP, and my post. That should tell you exactly who is the author - however, the ideas, and facts, come from the US Constitution and US law, and I can't take credit for those parts.

 

[Celebrity]

I'm always glad to see people with your undemocratic views reveal them to everyone reading. Due process is a concept of freedom from government oppression whose roots date back to Magna Carta, as Justice Thomas detailed so well in his concurring opinion in Obergefell. It is about as fundamental a right as there is in our law, which is largely based on the common law of England. It is reflected in all sorts of procedural requirements in both our civil and criminal proceedings. Government without the guarantee of due process of law is lawless, illegitimate government, also known as tyranny. The most efficient government--the type where the "progress" you value is easiest to achieve--is a dictatorship. That is the very kind of lawless rule our Constitution was so carefully designed to prevent.

Two sides to the same coin. In order for due process to work, you have to spend time and resources. I find it curious when people accuse me of being undemocratic. Do you think it might be the case that I merely stated a fact that both sides in a case can't win?

 

[jet57]

IF? We are not a Democracy so it is not up to a public votes, and polls are useless and not the way to draw up laws or change government. Throw out the Constitution and I for one feel no legal obligation to follow any laws or mandates from the government from that point on, since after all they are no longer a legitimate government. Meaning we would be at War.

If we're not a democracy, then how do we conduct government and decide elections?

 

[jet57]

Google it. It will come back to DP, and my post. That should tell you exactly who is the author - however, the ideas, and facts, come from the US Constitution and US law, and I can't take credit for those parts.

Everything in your life is a reflection of a choice you have made. If you want a different result, don't blame someone else, or expect others to make a change, you should stop complaining and make a different choice. Remember, the circumstances of your birth don't determine the outcome of your life.

Interesting signature you have there. Have you passed it on to the Republicans?

 

[Celebrity]

If we're not a democracy, then how do we conduct government and decide elections?

Well, we have groundhog day for the weather, and mom and apple pie. What more do you want? Can't we just be friends on paper?

 

[jet57]

Well, we have groundhog day for the weather, and mom and apple pie. What more do you want? Can't we just be friends?

Groundhog day never works and mom's dead. I prefer peach pie.

What else ya got?

 

[Celebrity]

I edited it too late. It looked good in writing.

What about paid sick leave and cupcakes?

 

[jet57]

I'm always glad to see people with your undemocratic views reveal them to everyone reading. Due process is a concept of freedom from government oppression whose roots date back to Magna Carta, as Justice Thomas detailed so well in his concurring opinion in Obergefell. It is about as fundamental a right as there is in our law, which is largely based on the common law of England. It is reflected in all sorts of procedural requirements in both our civil and criminal proceedings. Government without the guarantee of due process of law is lawless, illegitimate government, also known as tyranny. The most efficient government--the type where the "progress" you value is easiest to achieve--is a dictatorship. That is the very kind of lawless rule our Constitution was so carefully designed to prevent.

I guess sarcasm isn't your thing.

 

[jet57]

I edited it too late. It looked good in writing.

What about paid sick leave and cupcakes?

I have both of those.

We can negotiate.

 

[Celebrity]

I have both of those.

We can negotiate.

I can't provide either of these things. Let's you and the government talk it out.

 

[jet57]

I can't provide either of these things. Let's you and the government talk it out.

Can I bring Two Broke Girls?

 

[Celebrity]

Can I bring Two Broke Girls?

Hell yeah. Sounds like a **** show, but it could overturn the Constitution. Heck, if we turn up loud enough it could make John Adams and George Washington turn over in their graves.

 

[matchlight]

Two sides to the same coin. In order for due process to work, you have to spend time and resources. I find it curious when people accuse me of being undemocratic. Do you think it might be the case that I merely stated a fact that both sides in a case can't win?

No, I do not think that might be the case. I am sure it IS the case that you are talking incoherent gobbledygook, in a lame attempt to cover the fact you plainly disparaged the basic right of Americans to due process of law.

Not only the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, but the Constitution as a whole, is designed to make if difficult for the federal government to act efficiently. A lot of us see that built-in friction and balkiness of the parts of the system as a brilliant design feature meant to discourage concentration of power, which is a danger to a free country. Not only does the Constitution purposely set each of the three branches at odds with the others, it also divides power between the United States and the several states.

When our public schools used to teach civics, in hopes of preventing this from becoming a nation infested with hordes of ignoramuses who appreciate our individual liberties about as much as a chimpanzee would appreciate the Mona Lisa, this means of discouraging a concentration of power was often called the "system of checks and balances."

 

[Celebrity]

No, I do not think that might be the case. I am sure it IS the case that you are talking incoherent gobbledygook, in a lame attempt to cover the fact you plainly disparaged the basic right of Americans to due process of law.

Not only the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, but the Constitution as a whole, is designed to make if difficult for the federal government to act efficiently. I take that built-in friction and balkiness of the parts of the system as a brilliant design feature meant to discourage concentration of power. Not only does the Constitution purposely set each of the three branches at odds with the others, it also divides power between the United States and the several states. When our public schools used to teach civics, in hopes of preventing this from becoming a nation infested with hordes of ignoramuses who appreciate our individual liberties about as much as a chimpanzee would appreciate the Mona Lisa) this is often called the "system of checks and balances."

In that case, you have missed your mark. I did not say due process was unconstitutional, though I did say:

any appeal is an obstacle to either party's progress, but due process is characteristic of our decision making.

This was my answer to your question.

 

[jet57]

Hell yeah. Sounds like a **** show, but it could overturn the Constitution. Heck, if we turn up loud enough it could make John Adams and George Washington turn over in their graves.

Yeah, what I am tired of though is listening to the right-wing whine about everything the Democrats do is "overturning the constitution" or "tramples on the constitution".

If the right-wing were as constitutionally sound as they want everybody to believe, we wouldn't have any problems in this country.

I have a quote from the Constitutional Convention that I'm trying to dig up that warns of those who will wrap themselves in the flag...

 

[matchlight]

In that case, you have missed your mark. I did not say due process was unconstitutional, though I did say:



This was my answer to your question.

Baloney. You made your contempt for the basic right to due process of law very clear, and now, when called on what you said, you are trying to wriggle out of your own words. No one who respected the right to due process would say, as you did, that "unfortunately," it is an "obstacle" to "progress." The only "progress" the right due process is an obstacle to is progress toward lawless, tyrannical rule.

 

[Celebrity]

Baloney. You made your contempt for the basic right to due process of law very clear, and now, when called on what you said, you are trying to wriggle out of your own words. No one who respected the right to due process would say, as you did, that "unfortunately," it is an "obstacle" to "progress." The only "progress" the right due process is an obstacle to is progress toward lawless, tyrannical rule.

Actually I did not express contempt for the right to due process, or disrespect the Constitution. It seems you only apply a strict standard not to criticize the Constitution which you worship, when it suits your personal attacks, though I think you will find that the law is not above criticism and the Constitution is the law.

The only person here who is full of baloney is yourself. "No one who respected, etc." is argumentum ad lapidem at its finest.

Edit: woops, actually, that's the No true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[matchlight]

Yeah, what I am tired of though is listening to the right-wing whine about everything the Democrats do is "overturning the constitution" or "tramples on the constitution".

If the right-wing were as constitutionally sound as they want everybody to believe, we wouldn't have any problems in this country.

I have a quote from the Constitutional Convention that I'm trying to dig up that warns of those who will wrap themselves in the flag...

It's clear that it peeves you to have people who respect our constitutional rights call you and others out for disrespecting them. You had better get used to it, because I for one am not about to stop exposing the enemies of our Constitution for what they are, any time I can. Many Democrats don't much like this country or its Constitution, any more than does their standard bearer, the lying Marixst son of a bitch who is currently disgracing the White House.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Interesting signature you have there. Have you passed it on to the Republicans?

My signature is one of the primary beliefs of Republicans, especially Goldwater Republicans. There are a few of us here at DP.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Yeah, what I am tired of though is listening to the right-wing whine about everything the Democrats do is "overturning the constitution" or "tramples on the constitution".

If the right-wing were as constitutionally sound as they want everybody to believe, we wouldn't have any problems in this country.

I have a quote from the Constitutional Convention that I'm trying to dig up that warns of those who will wrap themselves in the flag...

The GOP is no more Constitutionally sound than the Democrats are - both are currently a threat to the Constitution.

 

[Deuce]

I'm watching this latest tantrum by Democrats on the house floor and they are demanding a closing of "loopholes" even though the method they are supporting is Unconstitutional. They are claiming that their proposals are supported by 90% of the public. So I ask, if 90% of the public chooses to negate the Constitution should we just accept their proposal?

Since I'm currently on tapatalk I can't add the poll but it's a simple yes or no with an explanation.

What methods do you refer to? Legislating?

 

[matchlight]

Actually I did not express contempt for the right to due process, or disrespect the Constitution. It seems you only apply a strict standard not to criticize the Constitution which you worship, when it suits your personal attacks, though I think you will find that the law is not above criticism and the Constitution is the law.

The only person here who is full of baloney is yourself. "No one who respected, etc." is argumentum ad lapidem at its finest.

Edit: woops, actually, that's the No true Scotsman fallacy.

Please keep digging yourself deeper into that hole. I'm confident that despite your lame denials, most people who read your comments on this thread can see the contempt for the basic right to due process that you expressed so clearly. I'm also confident that they can see how you are now weakly trying to curry sympathy for supposedly being personally, attacked, to distract attention from what you said.

But I have not attacked you personally. I carefully avoid doing that to any poster here, because it is a telltale sign of a weak game. That's why leftist dim bulbs rely so heavily on ad homs and name-calling. I have only attacked your words--the disparaging comments you made about one of our most basic and important constitutional rights. I don't care a damn who makes comments like that. They are just as loathsome, whoever they may come from. If you don't like to have what you say criticized, then don't promote undemocratic and un-American views here.

 

[Celebrity]

Please keep digging yourself deeper into that hole. I'm confident that despite your lame denials, most people who read your comments on this thread can see the contempt for the basic right to due process that you expressed so clearly. I'm also confident that they can see how you are now weakly trying to curry sympathy for supposedly being personally, attacked, to distract attention from what you said.

But I have not attacked you personally. I carefully avoid doing that to any poster here, because it is a telltale sign of a weak game. That's why leftist dim bulbs rely so heavily on ad homs and name-calling. I have only attacked your words--the disparaging comments you made about one of our most basic and important constitutional rights. I don't care a damn who makes comments like that. They are just as loathsome, whoever they may come from. If you don't like to have what you say criticized, then don't promote undemocratic and un-American views here.

Idolatry and complacence are the enemies of rational, informed debate. You are the only one who is digging yourself into a hole at this point, whereas I remain on the high ground. I will not join you there in false confidence.

By the way, the No true Scotsman fallacy is tantamount to a personal attack on my character.

 

[Lutherf]

Republicans held a sit-in/protest on the floor of congress after congress had adjourned and the lights were turned out years before the dems did it.

I see your confusion here. You think I'm saying that the sit in was Unconstitutional. That isn't the case. The sit in is childish nonsense and may violate house rules but the Constitution protects idiots too.

What I'm talking about is the proposal to prohibit people on the no fly list from buying guns just because they are on the list. There is no due process in getting someone on the list therefore it is Unconstitutional to strip someone of their right to purchase a gun just because they are on the list. The 5th Amendment says that and the Democrats are ignoring it.