- Joined
- Jan 22, 2019
- Messages
- 17,149
- Reaction score
- 6,827
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Not only do you know your hyper partisan spin is objective based... you even have the audacity to print that crap. Its not unknown what behind your agenda.In the case of the US Constitution, it is also the "Supreme Law of the Land" which government must abide at all times. I wouldn't expect a foreigner who has never read the document to comprehend, but you have the same attitude as Democrats. They don't give a shit about the Supreme Law of the Land either. As we see them deliberately violate the US Constitution on a regular basis.
That's not true.. "Men as elected person" may make and have made efforts and acts to violate the Constitution, and many of such Men as elected person, have been caught and charged, and some have been jailed.Crap. The government violates the constitution with impunity. Somebody's interpretation of the constitution, anyway. You guys like to pretend that the constitution is somehow 'virgo intacta', never to be violated, but you accept violations without a squawk.
You can try all you want to diminish, or ignore the phrase "We The People"... unto yourself, but you can't make it not exist in the Constitution. So... you may certainly enjoy your choice to try to diminish that phrase, because it changes nothing. Those words were there long before you came to life, and once life leaves you, those words will still be there.
It is becoming more and more True over the centuries and decades, because it is becoming "More Inclusive of All Multiracial, Multicultural Diversity of People who is, as individual person".
Again, nobody living today is morally bound by a 200+ year old document.
Might doesn't make right. It never has and it never will.
His name, as I mentioned in post #32, was Gouverneur Morris and he was the delegate from Pennsylvania at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. He was born in New York, but never elected Governor. He was also a Federalist, like Washington and Adams. It would appear that your grasp of the facts are tenuous at best. No wonder you imagine words that don't actually exist in the US Constitution.
Gouverneur Morris | Gouverneur Museum
Since Gouverneur was founded in 1787, many individuals have contributed to the community. These benefactors deserve recognition and respect.www.gouverneurmuseum.com
Do you actually believe this garbage that you spew? The Democratic Party has been willfully violating the "Spirit, The Principles, The Values and The Function of the Constitution" since their inception in 1828. Or do you think intentionally slaughtering innocent Americans fits in with the "Spirit, The Principles, The Values and The Function of the Constitution?" The Democratic Party has intentionally killed more Americans than all the foreign wars the US has ever fought - combined.Not only do you know your hyper partisan spin is objective based... you even have the audacity to print that crap. Its not unknown what behind your agenda.
Democrat Policies align extremely will with the Spirit, The Principles, The Values and The Function of the Constitution.
You mean the facts that you had absolutely no clue about, until I pointed it out? You have no substance, as I demonstrated. You don't even know your own history, as you plainly demonstrated.So minor an error of mine doe not change the substance of the facts I've informed you of in our prior exchanges that you fail to wrap your mind around.
You called the man Governor of a State where he never ran for office because you had absolutely no clue who he was. That is hardly a "minor error." That demonstrates a lack of education. Like your inability to grasp that the word "democracy" doesn't exist anywhere within the US Constitution. You are truly clueless.Morris represented PA from NY. That is fact.
It's easy for me to admit to a non-affective minor error. It's obviously difficult for you to admit to a major misunderstanding of the Preamble and Constitution, and the relationship btx the 2.
Thank you for "openly exposing your agenda" !!!!Do you actually believe this garbage that you spew? The Democratic Party has been willfully violating the "Spirit, The Principles, The Values and The Function of the Constitution" since their inception in 1828. Or do you think intentionally slaughtering innocent Americans fits in with the "Spirit, The Principles, The Values and The Function of the Constitution?" The Democratic Party has intentionally killed more Americans than all the foreign wars the US has ever fought - combined.
There has been no greater threat to the nation than the Democratic Party, and you want to pretend that they are somehow moral and law abiding when they slaughter innocent Americans and seek to violate the law at every opportunity? Boy, that takes self-delusion to a whole new level.
There is no lower form of life on this planet than leftist pieces of shit. They are mentally diseased sub-humans.
Once again you are demonstrating you vast ignorance. There is nothing "progressive," or of any value, in the preamble of the US Constitution with which "We The People" had no involvement. But do continue with your mentally unbalanced rant, it is a fine demonstration of the massive ignorance of the left. Attaching significance to something that has no significance is because you clearly have no clue about reality, contrary to your nick. Now that is irony.Thank you for "openly exposing your agenda" !!!!
Now, the rest of us can get back to discussing the beauty and progressive graces of the principles and values of "The Preamble" which is supported by "We The People".
Hope you feel better about yourself.... Good bye to youOnce again you are demonstrating you vast ignorance. There is nothing "progressive," or of any value, in the preamble of the US Constitution with which "We The People" had no involvement. But do continue with your mentally unbalanced rant, it is a fine demonstration of the massive ignorance of the left. Attaching significance to something that has no significance is because you clearly have no clue about reality, contrary to your nick. Now that is irony.
You mean the facts that you had absolutely no clue about, until I pointed it out? You have no substance, as I demonstrated. You don't even know your own history, as you plainly demonstrated.
You called the man Governor of a State where he never ran for office because you had absolutely no clue who he was. That is hardly a "minor error." That demonstrates a lack of education. Like your inability to grasp that the word "democracy" doesn't exist anywhere within the US Constitution. You are truly clueless.
Once again you are demonstrating you vast ignorance. There is nothing "progressive," or of any value, in the preamble of the US Constitution with which "We The People" had no involvement. But do continue with your mentally unbalanced rant, it is a fine demonstration of the massive ignorance of the left. Attaching significance to something that has no significance is because you clearly have no clue about reality, contrary to your nick. Now that is irony.
Perhaps worded a little strongly, but essentially correct. The "more perfect union" means "more perfect than under the Articles of Confederation."And the nonsense that this means (from your table) "to make everything in our country as perfect as possible" is sheer, unadulterated BS.
True, the Preamble is not a legally binding statement. What it is, IMHO, is the finest short statement of the fundamental purposes of government in history."The preamble is not technically a legal document, so the ideas contained within it are not enforceable in a court of law. But, it serves as a reminder of why the Constitution was written - to create laws around justice, defense, liberty, and prosperity for the United States."
Preamble - FindLaw
Find law and legal articles including lawyers for legal advice, legal rights or legal help to your legal issuesconstitution.findlaw.com
Nope, not even. True, the Constitution was written entirely in secret, and with good reason. But it was ratified in the full light of day, with often long and rancorous public debate. And while it required nine of the thirteen states to ratify it for it to go into effect, in each state the question was decided by a simple majority vote of the delegates elected to the ratification conventions.The preamble was written by Gouverneur Morris at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. He was the one who included the phrase "We The People" to a document that was written entirely in secret with absolutely no input by the people it was written to include. Which makes the phrase "We The People" more propaganda than actual fact.
No, it is not. In a democracy, whatever the majority wants it gets--the less that is true, the less of a democracy that system of government is. What the Constitution creates is a constitutional federal democratic republic ("republic" defined as any system that mixes the three "pure" forms of government--monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic--into a Rube Goldberg device).You mean like your propaganda "There is also no mention of democracy anywhere within the US Constitution"? The entire document, the Constitution, is the very construct of a representative democracy.
Nope, not even. True, the Constitution was written entirely in secret, and with good reason. But it was ratified in the full light of day, with often long and rancorous public debate. And while it required nine of the thirteen states to ratify it for it to go into effect, in each state the question was decided by a simple majority vote of the delegates elected to the ratification conventions.
As democratic as possible if they wanted to accomplish anything. Imagine if the firestorm of competing editorials that occurred during the ratification debates had happened during the Convention? It would never have worked, the pressure on state governments to yank their delegates and shut it down would have been unendurable.Not exactly democratic, huh ?
As democratic as possible if they wanted to accomplish anything. Imagine if the firestorm of competing editorials that occurred during the ratification debates had happened during the Convention? It would never have worked, the pressure on state governments to yank their delegates and shut it down would have been unendurable.
You're right, the Union is supposed to be a federalist structure--which, after the Founders got done redefining the term, means a form of government where you have a federal government with enumerated powers but lacking police power (except over its own directly-governed territory, such as Washington, D.C.). In this the states' rights folks are correct. Where many of them are--and the CSA was--wrong is asserting that among the powers reserved to the states is unilateral secession.The Union is a federalist structure of governance. States' rights folk can't process that fact. The type of a states' rights that I understand they want is impracticable. Like the CSA was.
You're right, the Union is supposed to be a federalist structure--which, after the Founders got done redefining the term, means a form of government where you have a federal government with enumerated powers but lacking police power (except over its own directly-governed territory, such as Washington, D.C.). In this the states' rights folks are correct. Where many of them are--and the CSA was--wrong is asserting that among the powers reserved to the states is unilateral secession.
Supposed to be. Here is the federal republic originally envisioned by the Federalists that supported the ratification of the Constitution, from The Federalist No. 45:Supposed to be? The US is a federal republic.
That isn't propaganda. That is fact. Learn the difference, if you are able.
The US Constitution supports a republican form of government, it does not support democracy and never has. Try reading the damn document and get a clue.
Supposed to be. Here is the federal republic originally envisioned by the Federalists that supported the ratification of the Constitution, from The Federalist No. 45:
"The Constitution delegates a few, defined powers to the federal government. The remaining State powers are numerous and indefinite."Federal powers will be principally exercised on external objects, like war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. Taxation will be the primary federal power over foreign commerce."The State powers extend to everything that, in the ordinary course of affairs, concerns the lives, liberties, property of the people, internal order, improvement, and the prosperity of the State."The federal government’s operations will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger. Those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."Since times of war will probably be small compared to peacetime, the State governments will enjoy another advantage over the federal government. Indeed, the more adequate the federal national defense, the less frequent the danger that might favor its ascendancy over the governments of the States."
What we have now bears very little resemblance to that original vision, and the mere possibility that the Supreme Court might be guided by it in the case of something like, say, abortion is enough to have Liberals frothing at the mouth.
Well, you are half right.
Only by morons who don't have the vaguest clue.
By people who actually have a clue.
Does it need to be mentioned more than once?
The Guarantee Clause just ensures a republican form of government, there is nothing about providing for a "majority rule."
The entire purpose behind the US government at the federal level was to limit popular elections as much as possible. Which is why, when originally created, both the Senate and the President were determined by the States and not the people. However, since the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, only the President is elected by the States today.
Then maybe you should stop seeking the perfect socialist utopia that you've been seeking.The Preamble says to "form a more perfect union" not "form a perfect union". This might be the time to point out that Christians aren't always correct either. Nobody was ever promised a perfect world.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?