The intellectual case to make Democrats illegal.

[James972]

In Germany they are about to make a political party illegal because it's unconstitutional. Why not do the same to Democrats here? Our Constitution is based on idea of very limited govt while Democrats stand for the exact opposite: always growing govt. How is that Constitutional? The Constitution requires an oath that office holders defend and protect the Constitution. How can Democrats take the oath to preserve and protect it when they oppose it? How is lying Constitutional? The Founders said the Constitutional was to be read literally. Madison did not release his notes on the Constitution (written during convention) till after he died so we would go by what was actually written in Constitution. Democrats want the Constitution to be living, i.e, to mean anything they want. How is that Constitutional? What is the point in having it then? Imagine if during the ratification process the Founders had say, please vote to ratify the Constitution, it can mean anything you want. It would not have gotten one single vote! So why not make the Democratic Party illegal?

 

[Renae]

In Germany they are about to make a political party illegal because it's unconstitutional. Why not do the same to Democrats here? Our Constitution is based on idea of very limited govt while Democrats stand for the exact opposite: always growing govt. How is that Constitutional? The Constitution requires an oath that office holders defend and protect the Constitution. How can Democrats take the oath to preserve and protect it when they oppose it? How is lying Constitutional? The Founders said the Constitutional was to be read literally. Madison did not release his notes on the Constitution (written during convention) till after he died so we would go by what was actually written in Constitution. Democrats want the Constitution to be living, i.e, to mean anything they want. How is that Constitutional? What is the point in having it then? Imagine if during the ratification process the Founders had say, please vote to ratify the Constitution, it can mean anything you want. It would not have gotten one single vote! So why not make the Democratic Party illegal?

Right, uhm... say which Presidential Candidate do you support that might try to make such a thing a reality?

 

[Diving Mullah]

In Germany they are about to make a political party illegal because it's unconstitutional. Why not do the same to Democrats here? Our Constitution is based on idea of very limited govt while Democrats stand for the exact opposite: always growing govt. How is that Constitutional? The Constitution requires an oath that office holders defend and protect the Constitution. How can Democrats take the oath to preserve and protect it when they oppose it? How is lying Constitutional? The Founders said the Constitutional was to be read literally. Madison did not release his notes on the Constitution (written during convention) till after he died so we would go by what was actually written in Constitution. Democrats want the Constitution to be living, i.e, to mean anything they want. How is that Constitutional? What is the point in having it then? Imagine if during the ratification process the Founders had say, please vote to ratify the Constitution, it can mean anything you want. It would not have gotten one single vote! So why not make the Democratic Party illegal?

That is a very interesting view...However, If you actually look at history, every single Republican President from time of Nixon to Reagan, to both Bush's systematically double and tripled the size of government. Only two presidents from time Reagan actually reduce government spending and size of the government. Clinton and Obama.

So by your argument we actually should make the republican party illegal.... As the saying go...Always watch what I do, not what I say!

Diving Mullah

 

[Lutherf]

In Germany they are about to make a political party illegal because it's unconstitutional. Why not do the same to Democrats here? Our Constitution is based on idea of very limited govt while Democrats stand for the exact opposite: always growing govt. How is that Constitutional? The Constitution requires an oath that office holders defend and protect the Constitution. How can Democrats take the oath to preserve and protect it when they oppose it? How is lying Constitutional? The Founders said the Constitutional was to be read literally. Madison did not release his notes on the Constitution (written during convention) till after he died so we would go by what was actually written in Constitution. Democrats want the Constitution to be living, i.e, to mean anything they want. How is that Constitutional? What is the point in having it then? Imagine if during the ratification process the Founders had say, please vote to ratify the Constitution, it can mean anything you want. It would not have gotten one single vote! So why not make the Democratic Party illegal?

There is no "intellectual" argument to outlaw thought.

 

[James972]

That is a very interesting view...However, If you actually look at history, every single Republican President from time of Nixon to Reagan, to both Bush's systematically double and tripled the size of government. Only two presidents from time Reagan actually reduce government spending and size of the government. Clinton and Obama.

So by your argument we actually should make the republican party illegal.... As the saying go...Always watch what I do, not what I say!

Diving Mullah

too bad we have a democratic constitutional republican mixed govt and the president therefore does not control the govt.

 

[Left Vendetta]

LMAO. Suppressing dissent via the Constitution? This is silly even for the standard of this forum.

 

[James972]

There is no "intellectual" argument to outlaw thought.

Democrats do more than think!! They are trying to take over our government! Its treason.

 

[James972]

LMAO. Suppressing dissent via the Constitution? This is silly even for the standard of this forum.

dissent is a good thing but subversive dissent is treason. make sense now?

 

[Captain Adverse]

"The intellectual case to make Democrats illegal. "

Shouldn't this be in the humor section? :roll:

 

[James972]

Shouldn't this be in the humor section?

if you disagree please say why or admit you lack the ability to defend your position

 

[Captain Adverse]

if you disagree please say why or admit you lack the ability to defend your position

You really need an explanation for why I think this must be a joke? Fine.

1. A truly democratic nation has room for ALL political viewpoints, no matter how extreme. We don't have to agree with them, support them, or stand idly by while they act out on them. But a free society should allow the non-violent social and political expression of all views.

2. The Declaration of Independence, the true foundation of our society, states very clearly: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." So if a political party is organized by a group of citizens seeking to "alter or abolish" the current form of government, then they have a right to the same access and participation as any other political party.

3. Germans are not the best guide when it comes to government. Despite their overt disdain of the government that led them into WWII, they still have a great preference for deferring to authority as opposed to individual liberty. What's good for them is not necessarily good for us.

4. Begin banning political parties and you simply send them underground and make them more disaffected and militant. Allowing them open participation reduces both disaffection and militancy, encouraging a willingness to commit to the political process. That doesn't just apply to truly extreme parties, it applies to ANY political group you would force out of the "democratic" system.

5. Finally, the fact that you actually think the Democratic Party is some kind of revolutionary organization indicates to me that you really have no grasp of politics.

 

[Lutherf]

Democrats do more than think!! They are trying to take over our government! Its treason.

When one of them commits a treasonous act you prosecute the individual. You NEVER go after an entire school of thought.

If, at some point, the voters decide that the US should abandon the protections of the Constitution then the people have a responsibility to act. Not before that time.

 

[James972]

When one of them commits a treasonous act you prosecute the individual. You NEVER go after an entire school of thought.
.

if the school of thought is unconstitutional it is unconstitutional!! Germany is doing it and so should we!!

 

[OrphanSlug]

In Germany they are about to make a political party illegal because it's unconstitutional. Why not do the same to Democrats here? Our Constitution is based on idea of very limited govt while Democrats stand for the exact opposite: always growing govt. How is that Constitutional? The Constitution requires an oath that office holders defend and protect the Constitution. How can Democrats take the oath to preserve and protect it when they oppose it? How is lying Constitutional? The Founders said the Constitutional was to be read literally. Madison did not release his notes on the Constitution (written during convention) till after he died so we would go by what was actually written in Constitution. Democrats want the Constitution to be living, i.e, to mean anything they want. How is that Constitutional? What is the point in having it then? Imagine if during the ratification process the Founders had say, please vote to ratify the Constitution, it can mean anything you want. It would not have gotten one single vote! So why not make the Democratic Party illegal?

You have mixed up so many subjects here it is difficult to take this seriously.

One, there is no Constitutional argument to make here where one political party should be "illegal" and leave the others (who have their own questionable actions in terms of Constitutional adherence.) While it may be a bit of a paradox, the people have a right to association. Declaring political opposition as illegal is the quickest path to fascism.

Two, the Constitution has a built in mechanism for change. Being "read literally" is not necessarily adversarial to being a living document (which does not always mean the Constitution to "mean anything they want.") Just the suggestion of the complexity of law forcing the Supreme Court into politics more than Constitutional limitations on government scope and reach is not exclusive to Democrats. Besides, the moment the ink was dry on the Constitution itself there was already a problem. It did not apply to everyone here. You know it and I know it, spare us the roses and sunshine view of the founders. For everything they did right and for every act of pure brilliance, it was matched with complications of the time they largely did little about.

Lastly, you will have a tough time proving that opposition to Democrats actually themselves believe in "very limited government." About the only ideology left in the US that has any sense of government being limited is Libertarians. Even classical liberals have ended up looking to the power of the government to "do something" for whatever we face. Republicans today are not Government nor are they Constitutional conservatives by any means. This has been true for several generations now (if not more) backed up by size and scope of government increases no matter who is in charge, off and on theocratic leans over the years, and all the legislation over the years putting stress on individual liberties as the Constitution "literally" stipulates. Where you sleeping when the Patriot Act was passed, or when bulk data collection and spying on the general public became the norm? And that is just one example. You have zero evidence that Republicans today would take us back to some concept of limited government scope. None.

 

[James972]

If, at some point, the voters decide that the US should abandon the protections of the Constitution

the Constitution obviously does not protect unconstitutional thought speech and behavior

 

[AGENT J]

In Germany they are about to make a political party illegal because it's unconstitutional. Why not do the same to Democrats here? Our Constitution is based on idea of very limited govt while Democrats stand for the exact opposite: always growing govt. How is that Constitutional? The Constitution requires an oath that office holders defend and protect the Constitution. How can Democrats take the oath to preserve and protect it when they oppose it? How is lying Constitutional? The Founders said the Constitutional was to be read literally. Madison did not release his notes on the Constitution (written during convention) till after he died so we would go by what was actually written in Constitution. Democrats want the Constitution to be living, i.e, to mean anything they want. How is that Constitutional? What is the point in having it then? Imagine if during the ratification process the Founders had say, please vote to ratify the Constitution, it can mean anything you want. It would not have gotten one single vote! So why not make the Democratic Party illegal?

the Constitution obviously does not protect unconstitutional thought speech and behavior

LMAO!!!!

Well you just proved you probably aren't from this country and what you definitely proved is that you have absolutely no clue about American government, political parties, the constitution, rights or laws. Thanks for the laugh.

"the Constitution obviously does not protect unconstitutional thought and speech":lamo:lamo:lamo

 

[Redress]

if you disagree please say why or admit you lack the ability to defend your position

Freedom of association.

/thread

 

[James972]

Freedom of association.

/thread

freedom of association has limits as does free speech. Do you understand?

 

[James972]

LMAO!!!!

Well you just proved you probably aren't from this country and what you definitely proved is that you have absolutely no clue about American government, political parties, the constitution, rights or laws. Thanks for the laugh.

"the Constitution obviously does not protect unconstitutional thought and speech":lamo:lamo:lamo

so is there anything that is unconstitutional in America. is it ok to lie when you take oath of office because you have right to free speech?

 

[AGENT J]

freedom of association has limits as does free speech. Do you understand?

Yes we understand you are severely uneducated about this topic and have no clue what you are talking about. What country are you from?

 

[James972]

. Declaring political opposition as illegal is the quickest path to fascism.

what if what the political opposition is opposed to the Constitution??

 

[AGENT J]

so is there anything that is unconstitutional in America. is it ok to lie when you take oath of office because you have right to free speech?

i can have unconstitutional thoughts EVERY DAY and I can make unconstitutional speech EVERY DA and nothing can be done about it because the constitution does in fact protect me.

breaking the law, violating and oat =/= free speech LMAO


please keep this circus going its AWESOME!!!

 

[Redress]

freedom of association has limits as does free speech. Do you understand?

Please learn about constitutional law and get back to me. Until then you are just being hilarious. Hint: there is zero legal precedent for limiting freedom of association in relation to political parties.

 

[James972]

Two, the Constitution has a built in mechanism for change..

but what if the change is opposed to the basic principle of the Constitution? Would you want to take the oath of office out so Democrats would not have to lie to hold office?

 

[Lutherf]

if the school of thought is unconstitutional it is unconstitutional!! Germany is doing it and so should we!!

"Unconstitutional thought"? What is that?

We have a First Amendment for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of insuring that there is no such thing as "unconstitutional thought".