Should the gop change its name to the 'constitutionalists'?

[bongsaway]

shrug...

Okay. Unfortunately, when you want to talk about how things are, you'll have to refer to the Constitution...as it is...even if you don't like it. You can't make shit up.

Make shit up? I pulled up the constitution and pasted it here. I'm not making anything up, that's what the constitution says.

 

[bongsaway]

Well, specifics are needed about what to update. When they wrote, all men are created equal, they were dealing with one revolutionary idea - the king and nobles were treated as quite superior to peasants, and they were radically recognizing at least white male property owners as more equal than they had been in monarchies. They were not thinking of and did not view slaves or women or "merciless Indian savages" as equal.

The "Great Emancipator" Lincoln said it clearly a century later when he said he opposed any idea of equality of races:



And yet, soon after, the US changed our constitution to, on paper, create just that equality under the law. No more slavery except for criminals, and no laws treating races unequally. Sure, culturally, great discrimination remained, but it was done under a pretense of "separate but equal" rather than 'officially' treating races unequally. It was progress.

A lot of what you criticize in the original document has been 'corrected'. Your point is now quite unclear. Are you criticizing the branches of government? The right to free speech? The freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? The natural born or age requirements to be elected? Etc. I don't think the constitution is the problem. Plutocracy is. Including that plutocracy 're-writes' and destroys important parts of the constitution.

Operative words, on paper...however in practice, not so much. Plutocracy, oligarchy and any other term to define the super wealthy ruling is what we have. It certainly is no longer a democratic republic.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The GOP, Constitutionalists?

No, no, no. Perhaps "Opportunists" would be a better title for the party given that they use whatever works for them when they need it. They apply the Constitution with Roe v Wade and the throw the Constitution down the toilet when it comes to the Democrat-led House wanting to impose their Constitutional rights to investigate the President and his cohorts.

The Constitution is not a guideline for the GOP, but a tool to achieve their goals when it applies and an obstacle-to-push-away when in the way to their success

My two older brothers, 70 and 76 respectively, have been calling themselves "Kon-ster-tew-shunalists" for fifteen years, fifteen years of pissing and shitting all over that document at every turn.

 

[Craig234]

Operative words, on paper...however in practice, not so much. Plutocracy, oligarchy and any other term to define the super wealthy ruling is what we have. It certainly is no longer a democratic republic.

Many times I have quoted Louis Brandeis - "You can have great concentration of wealth, or you can have democracy, but not both." The obstacle to fixing plutocracy isn't really a flaw in the constitution, we could fix it now through laws. We haven't figured out how to get political support for it enough.

 

[Argent]

Goons on Parade would be more apt.

 

[code1211]

"Fascists" would be more appropriate.

The Supreme court has ruled numerous times that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion. The Mississippi case brings no new argument to contradict this. It is based solely on the fact that the judges are more right-wing today than they were before. This is a horrible way to make law.

As far as I can tell, the original decision was not to make abortion legal or illegal.

It was to redefine a medical procedure away from a States' Rights issue to a Federal Issue.

Making a medical procedure the province of the Feds is a violation of the Tenth Amendment and is not supported in the Constitution.

Restoring this as a States' Rights issue would seem to me to be the correct legal decision.

Like other gems of expediency authored by the Supreme Court like 3/5 of a person and Separate But Equal, this might promote peace, but is obviously not Constitutionally supported.

 

[code1211]

First off it's the anti-abortion crowd trying to make a morality argument about killing "babies".

And rights reserved 'to the people' means it doesn't matter where you live and makes it anything than other than "obvious" that it's a States Rights issue.

With that you've managed to nail jello to the wall.

"Killing Babies is not a Constitutional argument. This seems so obvious that I supposed many would have noticed this.

Your second sentence might mean something, but it's difficult to figure out what that meaning might be.

This is a States' Rights issue. If it is not, please cite the specific constitutional passage that supports your thoughts.

You know: in the same way that the Second Amendment prohibits laws regulating gun ownership. If it's there, it shouldn't be hard to find.

 

[less right]

"Killing Babies is not a Constitutional argument. This seems so obvious that I supposed many would have noticed this.

And it's not an argument that the pro-choice crowd make. It's an argument the pro-life crowd makes. So it's obvious the pro-life crowd try to change a constitutional argument into a moral argument, not the "hysterical pro-abortion crowd" you try to blame.

Your second sentence might mean something, but it's difficult to figure out what that meaning might be.

This is a States' Rights issue. If it is not, please cite the specific constitutional passage that supports your thoughts.

You know: in the same way that the Second Amendment prohibits laws regulating gun ownership. If it's there, it shouldn't be hard to find.

I need go no further than the quote you provided.

You say that means it must be a States Rights issue yet your own quote says it could be a right reserved "to the people".

Why don't you cite the specific constitutional passage that says this is a "States Rights" issue and not a right reserved to the people. If it's there it shouldn't be hard to find. I found mine. Really you found mine, I just read it and understood it.

 

[code1211]

And it's not an argument that the pro-choice crowd make. It's an argument the pro-life crowd makes. So it's obvious the pro-life crowd try to change a constitutional argument into a moral argument, not the "hysterical pro-abortion crowd" you try to blame.


I need go no further than the quote you provided.

You say that means it must be a States Rights issue yet your own quote says it could be a right reserved "to the people".

Why don't you cite the specific constitutional passage that says this is a "States Rights" issue and not a right reserved to the people. If it's there it shouldn't be hard to find. I found mine. Really you found mine, I just read it and understood it.

Are you trying to be funny by posting this depth of stupidity? If yes, please confirm so.

"...reserved to the States respectively, or to the people..." means the Federal Government is not supposed to touch it. Period.

 

[less right]

Are you trying to be funny by posting this depth of stupidity? If yes, please confirm so.

"...reserved to the States respectively, or to the people..." means the Federal Government is not supposed to touch it. Period.

If only that was your original claim. It doesn't mean that States are supposed to touch it though either. Which is what you've been saying while you quote a phrase that doesn't say that.

My depth of stupidity is confirmed by the fact I try to have a conversation with you that I know will go south because you can't even understand what you're saying, let alone what I'm saying.

I see you've back off the moral accusations though. At least you may have finally understood how stupid an argument that was to make.

Now take the Jello out of your mouth and nail it to wall.

 

[code1211]

If only that was your original claim. It doesn't mean that States are supposed to touch it though either. Which is what you've been saying while you quote a phrase that doesn't say that.

My depth of stupidity is confirmed by the fact I try to have a conversation with you that I know will go south because you can't even understand what you're saying, let alone what I'm saying.

I see you've back off the moral accusations though. At least you may have finally understood how stupid an argument that was to make.

Now take the Jello out of your mouth and nail it to wall.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

 

[ataraxia]

Rebels without a Cause is more accurate.

Nah they have a cause alright: and that's to get rid of democracy and institute plutocracy/aristocracy/oligarchy, maybe with Charles Koch running the country.

They can get popular support for that because a lot of people think their skin tone or religion will make them a part of that privileged ruling class. But the masses being used don't realize their abject ignorance and latent prejudices and bigotry are just being used for the purposes of a handful of elite like toilet paper. No one really cares about their skin tone or whether they say "Merry Christmas".

 

[element94]

It appears you don't understand the purpose of the Constitution...or what it means to be "unconstitutional"...or, even, WHY Roe v Wade is considers by some to be unconstitutional.

I can go into this further, if you want, but you'll have to ask me nicely. Frankly, I think I would be wasting my time.

Anyway, to answer your baiting thread title: It's up to the GOP, isn't it? {B]Just like it would be up to the Democrats if you were to ask if they should change their name to The Socialists.[/B]

Which would have to be preceeded by the Trumpublicans changing their name to The Constitution Violators. There's plenty of examples, beginning with their god Trump violating his Oath of Office on numerous occassions.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Let's take the issue of abortion. The right would love to kill Roe v Wade saying it is not a constitutionally protected right. Fair enough, it's not mentioned in the constitution as are many many other laws that are not mentioned in the constitution, yet they exist.

In the year 2021 I have to wonder why so many republicans are supposedly dedicated to a document that was written almost two hundred and fifty years ago as if it still applies to today's america when much of it doesn't?

Everything in the Constitution applies to our modern society: free speech, free excercised of religion, freedom of self defense, free from quartering troops, right to privacy, right to due process, right to a fair trial, free from cruel and unusual punishment. What's not to love about that?

 

[danielpalos]

Nah they have a cause alright: and that's to get rid of democracy and institute plutocracy/aristocracy/oligarchy, maybe with Charles Koch running the country.

They can get popular support for that because a lot of people think their skin tone or religion will make them a part of that privileged ruling class. But the masses being used don't realize their abject ignorance and latent prejudices and bigotry are just being used for the purposes of a handful of elite like toilet paper. No one really cares about their skin tone or whether they say "Merry Christmas".

View attachment 67363368

I would consider voting for Bloomberg if he ran as a Republican who believes in and understands Capitalism. He should get a "free retry" even though he has a "petty cash fund" for it.

 

[bongsaway]

Everything in the Constitution applies to our modern society: free speech, free excercised of religion, freedom of self defense, free from quartering troops, right to privacy, right to due process, right to a fair trial, free from cruel and unusual punishment. What's not to love about that?

Words on a piece of paper don't make things so, that's what I think.

 

[less right]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

I know you don't. Or at least you pretend not to when you're losing the debate.

Have a nice day. Hopefully one that doesn't require reading comprehension.

 

[ataraxia]

I would consider voting for Bloomberg if he ran as a Republican who believes in and understands Capitalism. He should get a "free retry" even though he has a "petty cash fund" for it.

Contrary to rightwing propaganda, Democrats understand Capitalism just fine- even folks like Bernie Sanders. The difference between the two parties today is not about understanding capitalism. It's about whether basic human rights, as outlined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human rights (things like the right to food, clean water, shelter, access to healthcare, and a basic education) should be protected in a society, or whether societies should have the freedom of the jungle- where the strong thrive and rule, and those finding themselves in positions of weakness and vulnerability get eaten for lunch.

Anyone who believes in the protection of human rights and basic humane safety nets in society by definition cannot belong in today's Republican Party. The Republican Party is the party of freedom: the freedom of the jungle.

 

[Razoo]

How will a name change make them any different than they are now? Mostly they spin and lie and mismanage tax dollars under a variety of umbrellas take Supply Side Economics for example. Which
is a bit of a fraud.

It's kinda like the private army Blackwater that did so much killing under the Blackwater name then they became Ze or something close now they have rebranded again. Yet in reality the organization is still mercenary in nature.

Organizations and corporations like to rebrand if for some reason the names of such have become equated
with a pile of shit.

Does a political party as a whole know enough about the constitution to become the 'constitutionalists'?
Or are they still trying to project themselves as super patriots? = no such thing.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Words on a piece of paper don't make things so, that's what I think.

But, laws are words on a piece of paper for the purpose of documentation and posterity. Without that documentation the government can say the Constitution says whatever the government wants us to believe and we would be at it's mercy. Since we have a document that lists those rights, the people can question the government and excercised our right to redress of grievances.

Nobody ever said that Roe is unconstitutional. They have said that it isn't law, it isn't a right and it isn't protected by the Constitution. If someone did say it's unconstitutional, they're wrong.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Contrary to rightwing propaganda, Democrats understand Capitalism just fine- even folks like Bernie Sanders. The difference between the two parties today is not about understanding capitalism. It's about whether basic human rights, as outlined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human rights (things like the right to food, clean water, shelter, access to healthcare, and a basic education) should be protected in a society, or whether societies should have the freedom of the jungle- where the strong thrive and rule, and those finding themselves in positions of weakness and vulnerability get eaten for lunch.

Anyone who believes in the protection of human rights and basic humane safety nets in society by definition cannot belong in today's Republican Party. The Republican Party is the party of freedom: the freedom of the jungle.

Of course Leftists understand capitalism. They are still opposed to capitalism, or at least opposed to a mostly capitalist country. They don't mind limited capitalism, but it will be capitalism that is under total government control.

 

[bongsaway]

But, laws are words on a piece of paper for the purpose of documentation and posterity. Without that documentation the government can say the Constitution says whatever the government wants us to believe and we would be at it's mercy. Since we have a document that lists those rights, the people can question the government and excercised our right to redress of grievances.

Nobody ever said that Roe is unconstitutional. They have said that it isn't law, it isn't a right and it isn't protected by the Constitution. If someone did say it's unconstitutional, they're wrong.

Many people have said it's unconstitutional or is the gop right now trying to overturn it for shits and giggles? Let's see what this conservative supreme court has to say about the fifty year standing matter. It withstood the last time the gop tried, I'm not so sure it will withstand this court.

 

[bongsaway]

Of course Leftists understand capitalism. They are still opposed to capitalism, or at least opposed to a mostly capitalist country. They don't mind limited capitalism, but it will be capitalism that is under total government control.

Capitalism is not under government control, the government passes the laws the super wealthy and corporate america wants. Our whole system of money is a corrupt as the next nation. Those with want more even at the expense of those without.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Capitalism is not under government control, the government passes the laws the super wealthy and corporate america wants. Our whole system of money is a corrupt as the next nation. Those with want more even at the expense of those without.

The Leftists want total control. There's no arguing that they don't.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Many people have said it's unconstitutional or is the gop right now trying to overturn it for shits and giggles? Let's see what this conservative supreme court has to say about the fifty year standing matter. It withstood the last time the gop tried, I'm not so sure it will withstand this court.

I haven't seen anyone that's said abortion is unconstitutional. Roe isn't law. If the Democrats believe that abortion is so important, they should have passed a law protecting it, or amended the Constitution.