The intellectual case to make Democrats illegal.

[James972]

Lastly, you will have a tough time proving that opposition to Democrats actually themselves believe in "very limited government."

don't know why you say that: Republicans sign the pledge, vote for caps, shut downs, Balanced Budget Amendments, 100% against Obamacare ,stimulus, privatize SS and education, tax cuts etc etc all of which are killed by Democrats. NOw do you understand?

 

[OrphanSlug]

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

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?

don't know why you say that: Republicans sign the pledge, vote for caps, shut downs, Balanced Budget Amendments, 100% against Obamacare ,stimulus, privatize SS and education, tax cuts etc etc all of which are killed by Democrats. NOw do you understand?

Editing out the parts of my post you have no answer for, only to turn around and ask questions rooted in falsehoods and misleading information does not help your case.

You have yet to put a reasonable argument that supports making "Democrats illegal" that could also pass as Constitutional.

 

[Cardinal]

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?

Wut...?

 

[Eric7216]

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

Oh please. At least try for a little honesty.
Of course Congress is responsible for revenues and budgeting and the only times that Republicans have controlled Congress in the past 60 years was the last 6 years of Clinton and the last 6 years of Obama, as well as the first 6 years of GWBush.
And the government did not "double and triple" whatever that means, but when up slightly under every President.

 

[Grand Mal]

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?

Intellectual? (snort!)
This might have pushed itself into the running for most idiotic post of the year.

P.S.- Have you looked at the Republican Party lately?
P.P.S- Can't believe I spent about 1.5 valuable minutes on this.

 

[Helix]

i'm not a fan of the party system. i think that we can do better.

 

[Renae]

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

Yes, you've been around so loong as to know this forum so well...

 

[Left Vendetta]

Yes, you've been around so loong as to know this forum so well...

I've seen smarter stuff than this.

 

[danarhea]

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

It sure does. Cliven Bundy!!

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I just find it funny that someone getting all foundery ....is taking his cue from a modern EU socialist state.

 

[James972]

i can have unconstitutional thoughts EVERY DAY

sure but OP is not about your thoughts. It is about actions of a political party whose politicians must lie when they take the oath of office. now do you understand.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)sure but OP is not about your thoughts.
2.) It is about actions of a political party whose politicians must lie when they take the oath of office.
3.) now do you understand.

1.) didnt say it was i was going by your severely topically uneducated and factually wrong statement here:

the Constitution obviously does not protect unconstitutional thought speech and behavior

Are you now admitting that statement is 100% wrong?
2.) meaningless biased opinion
3.) yes like i told you before I understand you are completely biased, have no clue how American politics/government works and you are severely uneducated about this topic.

 

[James972]

there is zero legal precedent for limiting freedom of association in relation to political parties.

op is not about freedom of association it is about actions of political parties do you understand the difference?

 

[Geoist]

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?

How exactly would this accomplish your goal? They would just reform as the Progressive Party or something like that.

 

[James972]

"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".

The first Amendment does no allow you to lie when you take the oath of office. Now do you understand?

 

[James972]

How exactly would this accomplish your goal? They would just reform as the Progressive Party or something like that.

Democrats and progressives would have to lie when taking the oath of office so both could made illegal. Make sense?

 

[James972]

I just find it funny that someone getting all foundery ....is taking his cue from a modern EU socialist
state.

well, even a socialist state can have element in it that makes perfect sense.

 

[Geoist]

the Constitution obviously does not protect unconstitutional thought speech

Yes, it does. It's called the First Amendment.

 

[Deuce]

Democrats and progressives would have to lie when taking the oath of office so both could made illegal. Make sense?

No. Republicans are the ones lying and therefore you believe they should be put to death.

 

[azgreg]

How is this thread not flushed yet?

 

[akrunner88]

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

Both parties spend like there's no tomorrow and in fact deficit spending usually grows in Republican administrations.

The idea of liberal democrat programs is to put structures in place that save or invest down the way.

Invest billions in fixing water pipes now? Save countless billions more down the road when they get contaminated or break from lack of maintenance.

Invest money on birth control subsidies for poor people? Save many times more money on the program's helping poor children who wouldn't have been born had the mother used birth control

Spend more money on educational grants and programs making higher education cheaper? Get a bigger return in the future when a much more educated workforce obtains the higher paying jobs you can tax from. That's called a government investment into the people and a good return on investment, for both the government and society.

All these programs have up front costs that Republicans are opposed to but ignore the long term savings or even return on investment down the road. Democrats spend money to save money.

 

[James972]

1.) didnt say it was i was going by your severely topically uneducated and factually wrong statement here:


Are you now admitting that statement is 100% wrong?
2.) meaningless biased opinion
3.) yes like i told you before I understand you are completely biased, have no clue how American politics/government works and you are severely uneducated about this topic.

so why not tell us how a Democrat can lie while taking the oath of office and not be forbidden from taking office?

 

[azgreg]

so why not tell us how a Democrat can lie while taking the oath of office and not be forbidden from taking office?

If you were to forbid someone from taking office because they lied congress would be empty for eternity.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

well, even a socialist state can have element in it that makes perfect sense.

It doesn't, that is the point, one that keeps eluding you. The Fascists in Germany had the same idea, it made as much sense then as it does now.

Sieg...oh well, you know the rest.

 

[James972]

Both parties spend like there's no tomorrow and in fact deficit spending usually grows in Republican administrations.

Republicans have tried to make deficits illegal 30 times and Democrats have killed every effort. Republicans sign The Pledge, not Democrats so it is preposterous to say both parties are the same.