Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 11:13:16 AM
That's how it works in Utopiaville, but in the real world, drastic change requires one of two things, a 100% willing populace, or a gun to the head by a dictator, neither of which will happen,

Izat so? 

Curiously, when this nation was founded, not only was there no "100% willing populace", nor even a "50% willing populace".  It was more toward 13% and even less at the start.   And the chance of success against the greatest empire in the world was close to zero. And they did not themselves have a guarantee of a Republican form of government, where the federal government is limited in legitimate authority, as we do now.

You're doing nothing but talking out your ass.

I'm not presenting "Utopia" at all. You're dishonestly trying to phrase your argument as practicality and reasonableness, when it is really only about convenience.     You reject the restoration of legitimate government without a "100% willing populace" because anything  less than that will inconvenience your lazy, capitulating ass.

We're STILL not a Democracy, and even when we adopted the Constitution, it was not with the consent of the populace!

(Where's Shenanigans when ya need him? He repeatedly accused me of kissing Solar's ***.)

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 11:09:05 AM
Apparently all we have to do is wave the constitution and all will be well....

Aren't you the guy who said that elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution"?  Yes, in fact you are.

I'm still trying to find the indication in the Supremacy Clause, that the Constitution is the Law of the Land ... unless you lose the vote.  It's not there in my copy.

Why don't you go and "vote harder" and maybe all will be well!  Just ignore the fact that we're not any sort of Democracy in the meantime.

If you had any sense, you'd be in seclusion for an extended period. 

Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 12:25:40 PM

Aren't you the guy who said that elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution"?  Yes, in fact you are.

I'm still trying to find the indication in the Supremacy Clause, that the Constitution is the Law of the Land ... unless you lose the vote.  It's not there in my copy.

Why don't you go and "vote harder" and maybe all will be well!  Just ignore the fact that we're not any sort of Democracy in the meantime.

If you had any sense, you'd be in seclusion for an extended period.

Who upholds the constitution? I know you like to run away from questions but try and answer this one.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 12:57:37 PM
Who upholds the constitution? I know you like to run away from questions but try and answer this one.

Elections don't have a damn thing to do with whether or not to uphold the constitution.

You're doing nothing but licensing those "Libs" you seemingly deride, and trashing the Constitution, which one would think you support.

You don't know a whole lot. I haven't run from any question, you just haven't fucking understood the answer. 

Here's the answer more clearly for you to understand: your ignorance is a fucking hazard to the this country and our freedoms.  You're an enabler for those Marxist socialists because elections do not determine our form of government, nor what government might  legitimately do at all!  We are not any sort of Democracy, but that is what those Democratic Socialists claim,  and your ignorance is providing them license. 

When Obama said that "I won, and elections have consequences", you're the sort of guy that, actually believed that, and  nodded his head and said "yup, yup, they surely do!". If you'd been in Congress you'd be one of those rolling over on their back, and even allowing that unqualified Oval Occupant to repeatedly engage in activities that would have gotten every President in this country's history impeached.

You're emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Republican party, what most would call a RINO. You're why we are where we are now.

How's that? Clear enough answer for you?

Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 01:27:54 PM
Elections don't have a damn thing to do with whether or not to uphold the constitution.

You're doing nothing but licensing those "Libs" you seemingly deride, and trashing the Constitution, which one would think you support.

You don't know a whole lot. I haven't run from any question, you just haven't fucking understood the answer. 

Here's the answer more clearly for you to understand: your ignorance is a fucking hazard to the this country and our freedoms.  You're an enabler for those Marxist socialists because elections do not determine our form of government, nor what government might  legitimately do at all!  We are not any sort of Democracy, but that is what those Democratic Socialists claim,  and your ignorance is providing them license.  You're emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Republican party, what most would call a RINO.

How's that? Clear enough answer for you?

Oh I see!

Elections don't matter
Voters are irrelevant
Voters are enablers


You grand plan is to act by executive fiat. A four year monarchy. Grand idea champ.

Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 11:43:29 AM
Why don't you go read the Federalist papers. I am quite certain you've never done so.  I bet your eyes started bleeding before you made it through even one of them. Mine sure did.  I will tell you though, that reading them does get a lot easier once you become familiar with their phrasing and argument structure.  No, I've no desire to repeat what has already been done by others far more erudite than I.

For the record I have the federalist papers right in front of me now, and I have indeed read them all.

But I should obviously read them again because I really don't understand your obsession with the semantics of it all and need your points "spoonfed".

Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 01:27:54 PM
When Obama said that "I won, and elections have consequences", you're the sort of guy that, actually believed that, and  nodded his head and said "yup, yup, they surely do!". If you'd been in Congress you'd be one of those rolling over on their back, and even allowing that unqualified Oval Occupant to repeatedly engage in activities that would have gotten every President in this country's history impeached.

This is what I don't understand, if congress is what keeps the sanctity of the constitution status quo, then how doesn't the election of these congressmen determine whether or not the constitution is uphold?

Btw take a beer and give your significant other a kiss before posting more, you have been posting overtime 

Both sides have taken part in eliminating the constitution. This is one of the most blatant constitutional abuses that I've ever seen, and yet it's continued because crime rates have dropped. People like Bloomberg have absolutely no use for the constitution.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/08/12/nyregion/12reuters-usa-newyork-police.html?ref=stopandfrisk

This has been picked up by other cities. When we turn a blind eye because it takes thugs off the street, we are only hurting ourselves in the long term.

Quote from: Mountainshield on August 12, 2013, 01:56:17 PM
For the record I have the federalist papers right in front of me now, and I have indeed read them all.

But I should obviously read them again because I really don't understand your obsession with the semantics of it all and need your points "spoonfed".

This isn't really any sort of test, but can you identify which one of those Federalist articles describes today's Progressive Marxism in all but name,  and recognizes it to be incompatible with the liberty that is necessary for this country's  existence?

Quote from: Mountainshield on August 12, 2013, 01:56:17 PM
This is what I don't understand, if congress is what keeps the sanctity of the constitution status quo, then how doesn't the election of these congressmen determine whether or not the constitution is uphold?

In your experience, is Congress keeping the that sanctity of the Constitution?  Was it doing so even so far back as in 1798 under the Alien and Sedition Acts, which prohibited criticism of a government officiasl, and when Washington sent federal forces into the sovereign State of Pennsylvanian to quell the rebellion against the tax on Whiskey that the federal government really had no authority to apply?

Congress is not what keeps the Constitution's status quo, it is only compelled to adhere to the Constitution or else its actions are inherently, at face value null and voice, and the body becomes illegitimate.

• "Supremacy Clause"
  Article VI, Clause 2
  
  This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
  

The Supremacy Clause does not say that the laws of the United States are Supreme. It says that the Constitution is supreme, and only those laws that are first pursuant to the Constitution then also supreme.

In addition to that,  Article 1, Section 8, indicates that Congress has the authority to make all laws "necessary and proper" to the previous enumerated powers.  Nowhere among those enumerated powers is the power to change our form of government by mere law, nor is there any indication that Congress gets more powers beyond those enumerated,  depending on the outcome of the last election. 

As example, while it may be "necessary" to write laws that help out the fact that health insurance is so costly, it is not "proper" do so by taking over  the ownership of each and every citizen, dictating the terms of their health care insurance, and  writing a prohibited  bill of attainder to pay for the obscenity.  Congress should have just un-written their own law, which they had no authority to write,  prohibiting interstate commerce in health insurance, but that would have pissed off the lobbyists who were funding their reelections.



I had to answer your post before Boo's because in answering Boo's I intend to throw the full force of the Constitution at him, and there'd be noting leftover for you.

Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 12:07:46 PM
Izat so? 

Curiously, when this nation was founded, not only was there no "100% willing populace", nor even a "50% willing populace".  It was more toward 13% and even less at the start.   And the chance of success against the greatest empire in the world was close to zero. And they did not themselves have a guarantee of a Republican form of government, where the federal government is limited in legitimate authority, as we do now.

You're doing nothing but talking out your ass.

I'm not presenting "Utopia" at all. You're dishonestly trying to phrase your argument as practicality and reasonableness, when it is really only about convenience.     You reject the restoration of legitimate government without a "100% willing populace" because anything  less than that will inconvenience your lazy, capitulating ass.

We're STILL not a Democracy, and even when we adopted the Constitution, it was not with the consent of the populace!

(Where's Shenanigans when ya need him? He repeatedly accused me of kissing Solar's ***.)

Yet you still haven't told us how you'll effectuate your plan, and I'm talking out my ass?

Come, you can do it, tell us how....

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:12:40 PM
Yet you still haven't told us how you'll effectuate your plan, and I'm talking out my ass?

Come, you can do it, tell us how....

You were told, and the founders told you. You just want to ignore it.


In the meantime you have no plan at all.  Slowly is  not a plan,  and "less government" is not a goal, it's a comparison.

Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 03:16:59 PM
You were told, and the founders told you. You just want to ignore it.


In the meantime you have no plan at all.  Slowly is  not a plan,  and "less government" is not a goal, it's a comparison.

No, that's putting the responsibility on everyone else, while you claim the high ground, it doesn't work that way.

We, the Tea party is making change, what are you doing?

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:12:40 PM
Yet you still haven't told us how you'll effectuate your plan, and I'm talking out my ass?

Come, you can do it, tell us how....

Yeah he did.

Step one: Point to the Constitution
Step Two: Call everyone a Socialist who does not agree with him

It's the Shenanigans approach...

Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 03:16:59 PM
You were told, and the founders told you. You just want to ignore it.


In the meantime you have no plan at all.  Slowly is  not a plan,  and "less government" is not a goal, it's a comparison.

Really? The Founders wrote a paper that spelled out a 4 year plan to fix all the problems that occurred 200 years after they died?

WOWEE!

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 03:24:51 PM
Really? The Founders wrote a paper that spelled out a 4 year plan to fix all the problems that occurred 200 years after they died?

WOWEE!

Yes, revolution, but all I hear from him is whining that we're doing nothing, and he has all the answers.
How dare us actually vote socialists out of office and replace them with Conservatives.
Yet according to him we're the problem? Only in Shenanigans world, does that make sense.

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:12:40 PM
Yet you still haven't told us how you'll effectuate your plan, and I'm talking out my ass?

Come, you can do it, tell us how....

I've been wondering about that. I refuse to read all the long-winded posts, but I've been wondering if he's posted a step-by-step plan to restore a Constitutional government or just complain about what evertyone else is at least trying to do.