Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 03:02:57 PM
Who upholds the Constitution?

'

You have never, ever been given a choice on the ballot to uphold the constitution or not.

Nowhere does the Constitution provide any alteration or caveat  to its application based on a political vote.

Who upholds the Constitution is a bogus question, and believing that the vote upholds the constitution is pure nonsense, because the application of the Constitution is never on the ballot.   

The relevant consideration is what is the purpose of elections, and that purpose is not about whether or not to apply the Constitution.  The vote does not provide license to disregard the Constitution any more so than it provides command to upholding it.

Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 03:36:01 PM
'

You have never, ever been given a choice on the ballot to uphold the constitution or not.

Nowhere does the Constitution provide any alteration or caveat  to its application based on a political vote.

Who upholds the Constitution is a bogus question, and believing that the vote upholds the constitution is pure nonsense, because the application of the Constitution is never on the ballot.   

The relevant consideration is what is the purpose of elections, and that purpose is not about whether or not to apply the Constitution.  The vote does not provide license to disregard the Constitution any more so than it provides command to upholding it.

Here is your chance to prove me wrong. Go put on your hat and coat. get in the car and drive to DC. Park your car in the Congressional parking garage and walk into the Senate. Once there write a bill have have it brought to the floor.

Let me know how it works out for you.

Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 03:36:01 PM
The vote does not provide license to disregard the Constitution any more so than it provides command to upholding it.

Nobody said it does. But we currently have a president that doesn't think he needs a Congress and the People haven't rebelled or even done much screaming about it. So a president, unless he is stopped by SOMEONE is able to rule outside the law. And yes, our leaders are stewards of the Constitution. If they will not adhere to it, the responsibility falls on the People at the next election cycle.  If the People don't care, out leaders will rule over us as they see fit. A large percentage of the People really don't care until THEIR rights are being trampled. I'm not sure how you wake them up.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 13, 2013, 08:39:35 AM
Neville Chamberlain....or Neville Longbottom  ?

Neville Longbottom ended up showing more balls than Chamberlain ever demonstrated he might have had.

Quote from: Yawn on August 13, 2013, 03:49:03 PM
Nobody said it does. But we currently have a president that doesn't think he needs a Congress and the People haven't rebelled or even done much screaming about it. So a president, unless he is stopped by SOMEONE is able to rule outside the law. And yes, our leaders are stewards of the Constitution. If they will not adhere to it, the responsibility falls on the People at the next election cycle.  If the People don't care, out leaders will rule over us as they see fit. A large percentage of the People really don't care until THEIR rights are being trampled. I'm not sure how you wake them up.

Actually Boo Man did say that it does.  That elections are all about whether or not to "enforce" the Constitution.

No matter how much the people might care, they can only remove, at best, a fraction of the representatives from office in any given election.  Those people voting cannot change entrenched practice by Congress, cannot change the Court's corrupt and inherently invalid decisions, and cannot even force those most recently elected to adhere to the Constitution.

You're correct about a large percentage of the people not caring until their rights are trampled, which is why I brought up the Martin Neimoller poem about "first they came for the Socialists" in the Chris Matthews thread.

However the only way to establish that everyone's interests are equally maintained, is to restore the equal and full application of the Constitution.  And that cannot be accomplished by voting, particularly not from the level of corruption we're at now.

What is most disturbing is sitting here knowing that those actually running our government are waiting for the opportune moment to collapse the economy, and institute Martial Law.  And if that opportune moment does not come from civil unrest due to the overall degradation, then they will create that opportunity themselves.

Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 04:21:16 PM
Actually Boo Man did say that it does.  That elections are all about whether or not to "enforce" the Constitution.

No matter how much the people might care, they can only remove, at best, a fraction of the representatives from office in any given election.  Those people voting cannot change entrenched practice by Congress, cannot change the Court's corrupt and inherently invalid decisions, and cannot even force those most recently elected to adhere to the Constitution.

You're correct about a large percentage of the people not caring until their rights are trampled, which is why I brought up the Martin Neimoller poem about "first they came for the Socialists" in the Chris Matthews thread.

However the only way to establish that everyone's interests are equally maintained, is to restore the equal and full application of the Constitution.  And that cannot be accomplished by voting, particularly not from the level of corruption we're at now.

What is most disturbing is sitting here knowing that those actually running our government are waiting for the opportune moment to collapse the economy, and institute Martial Law.  And if that opportune moment does not come from civil unrest due to the overall degradation, then they will create that opportunity themselves.

No. No I didn't...

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 04:25:18 PM
No. No I didn't...

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 08:38:06 PM
We the people attempt to enforce the constitution by electing  political figures...

First off, enforcement of the Constitution cannot be done by political figures, certainly not one at a time, by those newly elected.

Secondly, the implication of your statement is that if we do not elect the correct political figures, then not enforcing the constitution is somehow a legitimate outcome.

Third, it is a further implication that we operate by a populist vote, and that legitimacy of government might be determined by that vote.

The truth is that the applicability of the Constitution is nowhere involved in the voting process.

And the people are not to blame for what government does in disregard of the Constitution, but I believe they are to blame if they actually believe that what government might legitimately do is established by elections.   

We repeatedly heard this from the Left, and Obama himself, in 2009 with the phrase "You lost, elections have consequences".  Sure, elections have some consequences, but serving as license to violate the Constitution is not one of them.


Sure, I understand that you were trying to say that the people are responsible for keeping the government in agreement with the Constitution, but elections really don't have that sort of power.  Furthermore, the belief  that elections might have that sort of power, also involves those elections being able to overthrow the Constitution, which is undeniably why the founders kept  popular elections from having more importance.

Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 04:51:04 PM


First off, enforcement of the Constitution cannot be done by political figures, certainly not one at a time, by those newly elected.

Secondly, the implication of your statement is that if we do not elect the correct political figures, then not enforcing the constitution is somehow a legitimate outcome.

Third, it is a further implication that we operate by a populist vote, and that legitimacy of government might be determined by that vote.

The truth is that the applicability of the Constitution is nowhere involved in the voting process.

And the people are not to blame for what government does in disregard of the Constitution, but I believe they are to blame if they actually believe that what government might legitimately do is established by elections.   

We repeatedly heard this from the Left, and Obama himself, in 2009 with the phrase "You lost, elections have consequences".  Sure, elections have some consequences, but serving as license to violate the Constitution is not one of them.

What is the point of Congress and the President?