I hate Democracy!

88 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote DugFmJamul: It means each branch of government stays within its constitutional limits and when one branch tries to exceed those limits one of the other branches puts them in check, its called 'checks and balances'.

I think we all agree with that. Let's take it a step further and realize that all consolidation of power is suspect and we should not only maintain checks and balances in government, but check the rising power of multinational corporations.

I assume you also agree then that the conservative dominated US Supreme Court is out of control and has too much power.

Quote DugFmJamul:Supporting sedition against our Constitution is what lead to the fall of our Republic and the rise of the 'Stealth Socialist' by the name of Obama. Only returning to our Constitutional 'Roots' will stop the full Obama transformation of our government into a 'Progressive-Socialist State'. No other nation has been able to stop this transformation at the half-way point, hopefully we will be the first!

I've asked this before, and I'm genuinely curious, since your opinions seem radical to me, what specific policies of the current administration have violated the Constitution? Were you or are you as critical of conservative politicians who have violated the Constitution, for example, Bush's disregard for Habeas Corpus and due process in the detainment of people at Guantanamo? Or South Carolina's State Constitution which states in Article VI, Section 2, "No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution." In clear and absolute violation of the US Constitution, Article VI, Section 3, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am
Quote DugFmJamul:.Ren, You are the intellectual puppet of this progressive forum, and like SPOCK in the reverse universe you know serving the progressive movement is "illogical" but you do it anyways. Well one man can start a revolution here and help promote Constitutional principles, can you be that man...what say you? p.s. What happen to "Sawdust", did you help to get him BANNED? (source)

I spent several wasted posts trying to get someone to answer two simple questions in hopes of going to another step in a discussion. For my efforts I got the above personal smear from you, and you weren't even involved, just a drive by. And for my persistence I was associated with being afflicted with a narcissistic personality disorder. Questioning right wingers in hopes of finding a sign of intelligence on this site is something of an art form, and I'm obviously not very good at it. Frankly, I don't know who is.

Let's see how far the next effort goes:

Quote DugFmJamul:
Quote dirac:i don't think returning to the consititution, whatever that means, will remedy all our ills.
It means each branch of government stays within its constitutional limits and when one branch tries to exceed those limits one of the other branches puts them in check, its called 'checks and balances'. I'm sure you heard of it before today! Supporting sedition against our Constitution is what lead to the fall of our Republic and the rise of the 'Stealth Socialist' by the name of Obama. Only returning to our Constitutional 'Roots' will stop the full Obama transformation of our government into a 'Progressive-Socialist State'. No other nation has been able to stop this transformation at the half-way point, hopefully we will be the first! I'm praying GOD will listen to the prayers of millions of Americans and prevent this unholy transformation to succeed! Restoring the Republic and the Constitution to its rightful place in government is the duty of any true American Patriot!

What do you think of the Constitutionality of the Unitary Executive Theory, promoted by a group of right wing legal scholars, who started the Federalist Society in 1982 under Reagan? Their purpose is to advance the powers of the Presidency in tripartite balance of powers. Their legal theory behind it echoes yours, the formalist theories of originalism, strict constructivism, etc. Are you familiar with it?

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote dirac:

I'll also add a followup. Along with my rejection of deifying the Founders, I also don't deify the paper they put ink to. Although their amendment process is highly restricted by aristocratic controls, it's still there! There must've been a purpose for that. When someone calls Obama a socialist, I just have to walk away. It's been done, it's old, and it's just doesn't hold water. Black men who achieve high stature always seem to be communists (Martin Luther King, Jr.) or socialists (Obama).

So according to you calling Obama a socialist amounts to being a 'racist'?

Obama is a socialist, just look at his Administration and Czars not to mention his former Marxist Pastor.

How many Marxist friends and acquaintances do you have? I have none, I bet Thom Hartmann has hundreds.

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm

Your ignorance abounds. There's whole fields of legitimate study devoted to Marxism where it doesn't even discuss Communism--especially as expressed in Soviet style totalitarianism.

Re: Czars and all that, I'd just stop commenting on Thom Hartmann's site and go read a couple of books. Maybe reading about Republican Jesus Reagan. He's a former communist who morphed into McCarthyite overnight when his job was threatened, by the way. He also had Czars, i believe, after Nixon made up a whole bunch: like Drug Czar, etc. Maybe he was trying to suborn us into being Commies, given his shady commy past? Just as valid as labeling Obama a socialist.

"So according to you calling Obama a socialist amounts to being a 'racist'?"

Um, no...you're just eating what you're fed without question and that's sickening. Look at how poisoning it is.

dirac's picture
dirac
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DugFmJamul:[quote=dirac]Obama is a socialist, just look at his Administration and Czars not to mention his former Marxist Pastor. How many Marxist friends and acquaintances do you have? I have none, I bet Thom Hartmann has hundreds.

Czars? Let's see, there's Douglas Lute, Wayne Downing, Richard Clarke....oh, wait, those were all George W. Bush "czars". The term has been in use in American politics since 1933. What's the issue with it exactly?

And again, you give me no specific examples. "Look at his Administration"? I don't see it. So enumerate for me specific policies Obama has or is trying to implement that are socialistic. The health care bill was filled with Republican ideas, and little different from the Republican plan passed in Massachusetts. Or if you think not, why? Show me the substantial difference.

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am
Quote DRC:

I read the posts that claim that Obama is worse than those he follows and shake my head in wonderment at the twisted thinking. The idea that Obama is worse because he is not stopping all that was wrong and is really "fooling us, because he's supposedly on "our side," says a lot about the poster.

Has Obama increased the debt, spending, deficits,? Has Obama increased the war effort, increased troop levels, increased drone bombings of civilians? Has Obama increased the payoffs to the Wall St. "banksters" as Thom calls them?

These are just a few of the things that the left railed against Bush for and demanded "hope & change". It is the blatent hypocricy that is being pointed out. Obama is doubling what you hated about Bush, yet you excuse him.

I do not see how he could have stopped the wars politically. Getting the diplomacy up to speed has been a real improvement.
Stopped????? He's INCREASING them!!! How's that diplomacy with Israel going? How's Iran feel about hope & change?

If the point is that the problem is bigger than an election can fix, agreed. That does not make the reformer worse than the imperial criminals. Even if he is ineffective, it is our job to keep the focus on the problem so the remedy can be more radical, not going back to the poison. Of course the Republicans will try to blame Obama for their sins. If we buy into the Obama is the problem line, we give them a leg up.
The problem is that Obama has doubled down on everything you hated about Bush. He is bankrupting the country. He is greasing Wall St like never before. he is ramping up the middle east conflicts.

The problem is that the left excuses Obama no matter what he does. It's like a rape victim excusing the actions of the rapist.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

"He also had Czars, i believe, after Nixon made up a whole bunch: like Drug Czar, etc. Maybe he was trying to suborn us into being Commies, given his shady commy past?"

Ooops dirac, you fell into the Ignorant Tea Partier trap that anything Russian is automatically Communist [even though it's just a colloquialism to describe a non-confirmed Cabinet member].

Bad dirac!

dirac's picture
dirac
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote slabmaster: He borrows and spends more. Obama has made spendthrift GWBush look like a tightwad.

Wow, this is clearly opposite the facts. Care to show how you came to believe this?

maraden's picture
maraden
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

http://blog.buzzflash.com/hartmann/10001   was referenced in Sue's opening post on Democracy thread. Robert Dahl ruffled a few feathers, but truth sometimes sucks.


In How Democratic Is the American Constitution, Robert A. Dahl takes us deeper into the complexities of how and when the ideals of American democracy were framed, and shows us that this great document came about in a way that was not as orderly as one might think. And while this book would make excellent reading for any college political science course, (much of it is indeed taken from lectures), the writing style makes it very readable.

The author takes us on a fascinating historical journey through our nation's early years. We learn that had Alexander Hamilton and Governor Morris of Pennsylvania had their way, we might have had a monarchy and a House of Lords. According to Dahl, the early framers debated these details out without much of a working model. He writes: "A substantial number of the framers believed that they must erect constitutional barriers to popular rule because the people would prove to be an unruly mob, a standing danger to law, orderly government and to property rights. Contrary to these pessimistic appraisals, when American citizens were endowed with the opportunities to support demagogues and rabble rousers, they chose instead to support law, orderly government and property rights". A predominant number of American citizens were free farmers who stood to benefit from an orderly government dependent on their votes."

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote reed9:Show me the substantial difference.

OK...you asked for it...

Socialism:

1. A political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.

2. A political movement based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and to the exploitation of workers.

3. In Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need.

Obama’s parents were both Marxists which had a very powerful influence on his life and ideology. Obama only studied the Constitution to undermine it later when he got the chance.

Obama surrounds himself with Marxists friends like Rev. Wright (Marxist Church), Marilyn Katz (head of security for SDS), William Ayers (Weather Underground), Valerie Jarrett (creator of the diversity czar), Mark Lloyd (Saul Alinsky disciple who praises Hugo Chavez for his democratic revolution) and appointed Marxists to CZAR positions such as Cass Sunstein (regulatory czar) an animal rights nut job, Ron Bloom (manufacturing czar) believes manufacturing jobs is primarily the responsibility of government, not the private sector and was quoted saying, “we kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun”, let’s not forget Van Jones (green czar) the self-described communist but the most telling appointment of Obama’s socialist designs on America is the appointed of Harold Koh as a legal advisor for the State Department. Koh is a Transnationalist Sedionist who believes in the false doctrine of the “Living Constitution” and once said, “in an appropriate case, he didn’t see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States, sedition? Of course it is, sharia law establishes Islam as the official state religion and that goes against the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Obama is an advocate of socialism and indeed a Socialist by any of the definitions listed, by now the evidence is so clear any reasonable educated person would agree with me, except the creature known as "Progressive". They must continue on with their one-sided dogma until the Socialist Utopia is realized, individual liberty be dammed.

CASE CLOSED…!

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm
Quote maraden:
Quote slabmaster: He borrows and spends more. Obama has made spendthrift GWBush look like a tightwad.

Wow, this is clearly opposite the facts. Care to show how you came to believe this?

CBO, Obamas budget, his record of expenditures in the last 15+ months,

Over the period 2010 to 2020, CBO expects the Obama budget would run a cumulative deficit of $11.3 trillion — $1.2 trillion more than the administration predicted. By 2020, total federal debt would reach an astonishing $20.3 trillion — up from $5.8 trillion at the end of 2008.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mjc5ZTIxMjlkYTg1Y2VmNzA0ZjQwMmM5YTQyNDJjMTY=

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Quote .ren:Are you familiar with it?

No, why should I be?

To be precise I'm not familar with the 'Constitutionality of the Unitary Executive Theory' but I'm very familar with originalism and strict constructivism, sorry I did not mean to mislead you!

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm
Quote DugFmJamul:
Quote .ren:Are you familiar with it?
No, why should I be? To be precise I'm not familar with the 'Constitutionality of the Unitary Executive Theory' but I'm very familar with originalism and strict constructivism, sorry I did not mean to mislead you!

Why should you be? It's pretty simple: It's the logical extension of your version of interpreting the Constitution. If you want everything returned to that formalist interpretaion's version you favor, then the way and means it will be returned is through the people who interpret it in real life, arguing the law, judging the legality of the arguments, not some abstract vision taking place in a model universe.

Those involved in the Federalist Society and its Unitary Executive Theory, are now among the top legal theorists in the nation. The Federalist Society is a major force law now. All parts of it. They are getting the positions on the Supreme Court now, for instance. They are getting placement in the top universities and law schools. They are actively arguing the law and judging the law, making the Constitution the reality through that process. How do you imagine your theory of returning to the principles of the Constititution is supposed to happen? I'm really curious if it's any different than this process I'm outlining.

You make insistent and repeated dogmatic statements about the Constitution as if it were a Bible, but you seldom offer a means by which your proclamations can take place in real life. The Unitary Executive Theory is the result of a group of legal theorists who spend their lives immersed in the law attempting to carry out your ideas through its interpration. Their theory of interpretation is at least categorically the same as yours. Why on earth don't you know about it?

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

hey dug, sorry to break it to you but the Socialists.Killed.The.Czars!

You have to be consistent somewhere with your inaccurate labels.

dirac's picture
dirac
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

.Ren,

I reject any 'Unitary Executive Theory' on the principle that...


The Constitution in its words is plain and intelligible, and it is meant for the homebred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow citizens.

...with that being said, the Constitution is not supposed to be read as the Bible.

The Constitution is a legal enduring binding document that means the same today as it did when the Constitution and its Amendments were ratified, for example:

What is the Constitutional definition of 'Invasion'?

Simple question, so please don't read too much into it and you will have the answer.

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm
Quote DugFmJamul:Obama’s parents were both Marxists which had a very powerful influence on his life and ideology.

Perhaps you misunderstand the term evidence. What you have here is simply an assertion claiming that Obama's parents were Marxists. Please back that up. All I could find in a quick search is that his mother went to Mercer Island High School with claims that there were many pro-Marxist teachers there, but no real corroboration of that. And even if that were true, it still doesn't make her a Marxist any more than all of the other hundreds of kids who went to school there are marxist. Just being to the left politically does not a Marxist make.

Furthermore, even if she was a Marxist, it doesn't make Obama one. She was more clearly a secular humanist, and Obama is clearly devoutly Christian. My dad is essentially a libertarian, and I am not. His parents beliefs are not necessarily his beliefs. So strike, not actual evidence.

Quote DugFmJamul:Obama only studied the Constitution to undermine it later when he got the chance.

That's pure opinion and also not evidence. You are not a mind reader and cannot say what Obama's motives were.

Quote DugFmJamul:Obama surrounds himself with Marxists friends like Rev. Wright (Marxist Church), Marilyn Katz (head of security for SDS), William Ayers (Weather Underground), Valerie Jarrett (creator of the diversity czar), Mark Lloyd (Saul Alinsky disciple who praises Hugo Chavez for his democratic revolution) and appointed Marxists to CZAR positions such as Cass Sunstein (regulatory czar) an animal rights nut job, Ron Bloom (manufacturing czar)

Again, you're ascribing guilt by association. Not evidence. Obama broke with Rev. Wright because of the Reverends comments. The Ayers link is tenuous. Valeria and Cass I don't consider particularly radical and I don't know much about the rest. In the context of who past presidents and politicians have associated with, it all seems pretty par for the course. McCain certainly had plenty of unseemly characters in his past as well.

Obama is an advocate of socialism and indeed a Socialist by any of the definitions listed, by now the evidence is so clear any reasonable educated person would agree with me, except the creature known as "Progressive". They must continue on with their one-sided dogma until the Socialist Utopia is realized, individual liberty be dammed. CASE CLOSED…![/quote]

No, case not closed. Even if everything you cited above were true, hell, even if Obama was outspokenly a Marxist sympathizer, it doesn't mean his policies or his administration is Marxist or unconstitutional. I asked before and I ask again, give me specific policy decisions that violate the US Constitution, and which sections are violated. And tell me whether you are as critical towards conservative politicians who violate the constitution. I'm not interested in your partisan rhetoric and ad hominem attacks. I want solid facts backing up your claims.

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am
Quote dirac:

hey dug, sorry to break it to you but the Socialists.Killed.The.Czars!

You have to be consistent somewhere with your inaccurate labels.

Correct, Socialists killed Czars.

So what's that got to do with Obama and his Socialist Czars?

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm

It has everything to do with using words you don't know anything about. As is thoroughly proven in this thread, you can't even give a single real fact showing your paranoid view of reality is indeed real [strike: fact]. It's all ad hominem, supposition, and innuendo used by the neo-Royalists to manipulate your emotions and convince you that Obama and his "supporters" (i put the quotes in because I can pretty much say I do no support his policies) are your enemy. We've been conditioned to thinking socialism is bad and now instead of a cognition and critical thought, there's an emotional response to a word. Just like with Pavlovian dogs, poor susceptible souls drool when they ring the bell. Same thing's happening to czar, where if the president were not black or Democrat, we hadn't heard this rabid denunciation of the term.

dirac's picture
dirac
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote reed9:
Quote DugFmJamul:Obama only studied the Constitution to undermine it later when he got the chance.
That's pure opinion and also not evidence. You are not a mind reader and cannot say what Obama's motives were.

Correct it's my opinion based on his 2001 Radio interview.

Quote reed9:
Again, you're ascribing guilt by association. Not evidence. Obama broke with Rev. Wright because of the Reverends comments. The Ayers link is tenuous. Valeria and Cass I don't consider particularly radical and I don't know much about the rest. In the context of who past presidents and politicians have associated with, it all seems pretty par for the course.

Obama broke with Rev. Wright because of political expediency, nothing more...the rest are just your opinions. I'm entitled to mine based on his friends and associations, both do matter when summarizing one's character!

But how many Marxists did GWB or Regan have in their Administrations?

Quote reed9:
I asked before and I ask again, give me specific policy decisions that violate the US Constitution, and which sections are violated. And tell me whether you are as critical towards conservative politicians who violate the constitution. I'm not interested in your partisan rhetoric and ad hominem attacks. I want solid facts backing up your claims.

Barack H. Obama signed the unconstitutional Bill H.R. 3590 into Law, it was a violation of ART I Sec 8; Congress has no power to create a 'Health Exchange' nor can the President force any U.S. Citizen into buying private health insurance.

Barack H.Obama's 'invisible signing statements' are clearly unconstitutional, look it up!

Whether I was critical against conservative politicians past or present who violated the Constitution is not relevant to this discussion but if and when they do violate the constitution, rest assure I would be the first to expose them.

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm
Quote dirac:

It has everything to do with using words you don't know anything about. As is thoroughly proven in this thread, you can't even give a single real fact showing your paranoid view of reality is indeed real [strike: fact]. It's all ad hominem, supposition, and innuendo used by the neo-Royalists to manipulate your emotions and convince you that Obama and his "supporters" (i put the quotes in because I can pretty much say I do no support his policies) are your enemy. We've been conditioned to thinking socialism is bad and now instead of a cognition and critical thought, there's an emotional response to a word. Just like with Pavlovian dogs, poor susceptible souls drool when they ring the bell. Same thing's happening to czar, where if the president were not black or Democrat, we hadn't heard this rabid denunciation of the term.

I have already given you all more than enough evidence to convince anyone not under the influence of liberalism (.snap out it) that Obama is a Socialist, I can't help you if you won't read and digest the material...!

What more do you want?

Did Castro admit he was a Marxist before Cuba fell to the Dictator?

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm
Quote DugFmJamul:.Ren, I reject any 'Unitary Executive Theory' on the principle that...
The Constitution in its words is plain and intelligible, and it is meant for the homebred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow citizens.
...with that being said, the Constitution is not supposed to be read as the Bible. The Constitution is a legal enduring binding document that means the same today as it did when the Constitution and its Amendments were ratified, for example: What is the Constitutional definition of 'Invasion'? Simple question, so please don't read too much into it and you will have the answer.

Now you've reduced yourself to gibberish. Sorry, translation: You resort to fallacies as usual, ie.: You've rejected something you've never heard of until now, or so you say, without knowing what it says, or how it was interpreted. That's a fallacious form of reasoning.

You have said you favor originalism, strict constructionism.

Then you say: "The Constitution is not supposed to be read as the Bible."

I have no idea what that means. I wouldn't have said that it was or wasn't supposed to be anything. What I would say is there are differences of interpretations, and that's quite true of any Bible. So that's a vacuous statement without a reference to your version of "supposed to be read as." If I have that, then I can at least deconstruct it and reveal the fallacies. It's so empty I can't even do that. So it's vacuous as it stands.

But I suspect that if you are going to

Quote dugfmjamul: reject any 'Unitary Executive Theory' on the principle that... [quote] The Constitution in its words is plain and intelligible, and it is meant for the homebred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow citizens.

then I foresee a sophist's journey with you setting the standards for interpretation, which, as I've observed in the past, you will switch around whenever it's convenient. Where can that go? Please tell me. I see chaos, lack of intellectual discipline and ultimately sophistry in your responses.

The law is simply words on a paper until someone interprets it, whoever that might be, including "homebred, unsophisticated understandings" of our fellow citizens.

Quote dugfmjamul: The Constitution is a legal enduring binding document that means the same today as it did when the Constitution and its Amendments were ratified, for example: What is the Constitutional definition of 'Invasion'? Simple question, so please don't read too much into it and you will have the answer.

Yeah, more logical fallacies. You and I can debate the meaning of the word "invasion" 'til the cows come home. That's a strawman question. The problem remains that the Constitution's meaning, when it was written or ever in the past two hundred years, has to be interpreted by a human being, not something all knowing, but a genuine, living, breathing, thinking human being. And if we "homebred, unsophisticated" citizens differ in our interpretations, then there's going to be an interpretation problem. As anyone who's actually, seriously tried to make sense of the law for themselves comes to ask: how can that problem be resolved? You might go anywhere on the spectrum from authoritarianism do democracy to find answers.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

.Ren,

I gave you a simple task to perform and you failed miserably!

The Constitution and 'Common Sense' go together like bread and butter.

Have you every been part of a Constitutional Study Group?

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm
Quote DugFmJamul:
Quote reed9:[quote=DugFmJamul]Obama only studied the Constitution to undermine it later when he got the chance.
That's pure opinion and also not evidence. You are not a mind reader and cannot say what Obama's motives were.
Correct it's my opinion based on his 2001 Radio interview.
Quote reed9:

Do you have a link to that interview or the text of it? I'd be curious to see it.

But how many Marxists did GWB or Regan have in their Administrations?

I'll be perfectly honest, because I'm tired of arguing about Marxism. Who cares? It's not illegal to be a Marxist. So long as they are competent and obeying the laws of the land, I could give a damn. (And no, I'm not a Marxist. I don't care much for the philosophy at all.)

Barack H. Obama signed the unconstitutional Bill H.R. 3590 into Law, it was a violation of ART I Sec 8; Congress has no power to create a 'Health Exchange' nor can the President force any U.S. Citizen into buying private health insurance.

That's a tenuous interpretation. Couldn't it fall under "provide for the common defense and general welfare"? Or "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"?

Barack H.Obama's 'invisible signing statements' are clearly unconstitutional, look it up!

I tried. First hit on Google? Bush's Invisible Ink. Signing statements have been used by both Democrats and Republicans. This is why I asked whether you were as critical of conservative politicians. So I trust you were up in arms and speaking out against Bush when he used signing statements, right? And back in Clinton's presidency, when the individual mandate was a Republican idea, you opposed them, right? And when the individual mandate was passed by a Republican in Massachusetts, you were vocal in your opposition, right? The "first to expose them"?

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am

Wow, Ren, I bow in humble admiration for your patience and precision in pastoral care for Dug. And anyone wondering about how to conduct a civil conversation across serious divides of emotiional and intellectual significance, take note. This is how you do it. Congratualations my friend.

I begin with Original Intent. The Founders were not bound by what was. They had the imagination to found "the First New Nation," and what was new was popular sovereignty in place of Divine Ordination. Sure, it was a step toward democracy in republican form. The franchise was limited to the propertied males. But that changed, and it changed because the Spirit behind the Law was democratic instead of aristocratic.

The Constitution was political sausage, but pretty good on the grill for all that. They did not successfully finesse the slavery issue, and we paid a heavy price for that bad one. We are still paying.

We can also see that the concern about mob rule and fear of radical democracy was misplaced. We ought to have been more concerned about the return of the Corporate Dominators of our neo-British East India or Hudson's Bay privateers. Government is clearly not "the problem." Corporations are. Their control of government is toxic to democracy. We need more government, but less ruling. We need more government in the boardrooms and less government in our bedrooms. And we need to get out of the authoritarian empire business as soon as possible.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I would add that it is not the fault of the Founders that we gave away our legacy to Commerce Uber Alles. Imagine, Commerce Uber Alles and No National Economic Strategy. We are global corporate victims because we have assets that can be stripped and leveraged. Or we had them.

Now we have banksterworld. And standing armies on a scale of insanity.

No, the Founders of America did not bequeath this 'legacy.' It took some serious depravity to degrade the Liberal impulse of civil moral agency and conscience into a predatory wet dream.

At the same time, we need to recognize the ethnic and parochial limitations of our inheritance. English Common Law did not evolve from Plato and Aristotle. It came from a society of brigands and raiders. They tended to resist central authorities. We are not working with the refined and evolved traditions of Cicero and Solon, and they are not what they are held up to be by a long measure. The mythology of the White Lie behind our "exceptionalism" is scrambled eggs to go with the hagiography and political sausage. Great wake up breakfast if you need speed.

I want White People to evolve into European Americans, or convert. I don't care how they get there. But we have to get over White. It is the filter that blocks out the realities we could embrace so happily. It is what keeps White People from being human. I know, from having others tell me that I had crossed that line into humanity without any darkness of skin color. They told me I was black, and I had to believe that they knew more about blackness than I did. I also know that Ralph Ellison is right. We are all black if we are American. Check out the music. When you go black, you can be ethnically European, but you cannot go back to White.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Couldn't it fall under "provide for the common defense and general welfare"?

No and it's a common mistake made by the 'statist', "provide for the common defense and general welfare" is not an enumerated power.

Hey it's been fun up to now but I got to go...thanks

CHEERS

GOOD NIGHT NOW!

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm

Thanks DRC. I hope others can learn from this example in some way. That's what I would call an external, non agency hope, lol. I hope, anyway. This is a lot of work, and I don't do it much anymore.

Quote DugFmJamul:.Ren, I gave you a simple task to perform and you failed miserably! The Constitution and 'Common Sense' go together like bread and butter. Have you every been part of a Constitutional Study Group?

Do I need to be part of a Constitutional Study Group to figure this out? Whatever happened to:

Quote DugFmJamul:The Constitution in its words is plain and intelligible, and it is meant for the homebred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow citizens.

Here's what I've done if we are suddenly switching to who has the authority in this based on previous study:

I have studied the Constitution, read it through numerous times, I have tried to apply different sections to rulings which I have read in their entirety. I have studied it through struggling to an understanding of the Unitary Executive Theory, along with the different legal interpretations about that theory, looking at it from different sides. A lot of that ended up in some lengthy threads on the Thom Hartmann board a few years back. I have had experts in law and political theory commend me for my discussions about understanding the UET on this board. People who wrote some of the legal analysis I've refered to from time to time. I've studied law by having to write sections law in my strategic plans and operations manuals for corporations. I think there's more but that's off the top of my head.

Or is the authority for this restricted to Constitutional Study Group certification? If so, once again I ask the "what ever happened to" question.

It appears we've arrived at an impasse. I explained why discussing your "invasion definition" strawman is pointless. Your next task once I've done that is counter my argument and attempt to justify why it isn't a strawman as I argue, but has some sort of point to it. You need to address the problem of interpretation I've presented to you in order to deal with that problem. One way or another you need to address it.

Dogmatic statements about supposed clear meaning doesn't solve the problem of why we human beings will differ in our interpretatios. I addressed everything in your post. It's your task to recognize what I said now and respond. Telling me I failed doesn't tell me anything, forget the condenscending tone of your way of putting it after all the effort I went through. You've not responded, and you are using your failure to do so as an Orwellian shield. Which is sophistry, exactly as I predicted.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote DugFmJamul:
Couldn't it fall under "provide for the common defense and general welfare"?
No and it's a common mistake made by the 'statist', "provide for the common defense and general welfare" is not an enumerated power. Hey it's been fun up to now but I got to go...thanks CHEERS GOOD NIGHT NOW!

I'm not sure what you mean. It's the first thing in Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am
Quote .ren:Do I need to be part of a Constitutional Study Group to figure this out?

You don't seem to know what a constitutional study group is, all you had to to is ask....

With all of your experience with the Constitution you chose 'Task Avoidance' instead of just answering the simple question I gave to you, communication is a two way street something you seem to have forgot.

Just play along and answer the question...


What's the Constitutional definition of 'Invasion'?
DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm
Quote dugfmjamul:

If you wanted to know what a constitutional study group is all you had to to is ask....

I don't. I pointed out that you've suddenly put that into the mix like it matters.

Quote dugfmjamul:

With all of your experience with the Constitution you chose 'Task Avoidance' instead of just answering the simple question I gave to you, communication is a two way street something you seem to have forgot.

Just be play along and answer the question...

Quote dugfmjamul:What's the Constitutional definition of 'Invasion'?

First of all, this is a discussion. This is not "dugfmjamul setting out tasks" like he did for his crew when he was an authority of some kind in the Navy.

I don't do anything little tin sophists or anyone else sets out for me to do without explanation. If you want something, you have to play back. So far I've taken your demeaning innuendos, your insults I brought from another thread, and I haven't been triggered into an emotional response, which I figure is your primary reason for being here, since you have proven time and time again, you don't have the ability to truly think something out when you are challenged, but rather you'll switch to a tactic like this and then trumpet some where else that I failed to do something which I claim is stupid, but you never mention that.

I understand you don't like democracy, as your lead in this thread says with an exclamation mark, and this is a fine example of your predilections in action. Rigid. Stick to the task like it's a bobbing stick in a wide ocean of possibility. Democracy is tough to do. Especially for people who've been given positions of authority and think that's the way life should be. The one who doesn't understand two way streets here is quite obviously you, because you are now rigidly stuck with this "I gave you a task" insulting behavior. But I already understand that, you see, I was in the military. So no, not without justification and not without it being meaningful, it's your move to do that.. I already went past whatever you can come up with. I figure you need to show me you have some reason for this strawman task of yours.

Otherwise it's a strawman, a meaningless, off the mark strawman. We're done if you can't do it. I don't think you can. I think you are completely lost about anything I've said and you are floundering for some footing.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

What's the Constitutional definition of 'Invasion'?

Is not a strawman, it's legitimate question to see how one reads the Constitution. You would be surprised how close most people who read the Constitution actually come to the same meaning.

I'M NOT TRYING TO BUST YOUR CHOPS....

A Constitutional Study Group is simply a common group of people that are tasked with reading and explaining what the Constitution means.

The data collected can be most revealing and entertaining...

...SO...

What's the Constitutional definition of 'Invasion'?

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm

Dug, you don't get to set the agenda in a discussion. You can ask a good question, but "what is the Constitutional definition of 'invasion'?" is more gotcha than inquiry.

What does the Constitution have to do with "invasion?" The well regulated militian is the thing that comes to mind, but that has been obviated by the imprerial legions of standing army champeenship. No people ever paid more to the gods of war than we in the name of democracy and freedom.

Being invaded by a hostile armed force under the political direction of a would-be conqueror would qualify as "invader." How about the bugs that once stopped south of the border but find the new climate of the North loverly? Some call them "invasive." The Statue of Liberty welcomes all the huddled masses of oppression to the shores of liberty. I know, it is all pre-9/11.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DugFmJamul:What's the Constitutional definition of 'Invasion'? Is not a strawman, it's legitimate question to see how one reads the Constitution. You would be surprised how close most people who read the Constitution actually come to the same meaning. I'M NOT TRYING TO BUST YOUR CHOPS.... A Constitutional Study Group is simply a common group of people that are tasked with reading and explaining what the Constitution means. The data collected can be most revealing and entertaining... ...SO... What's the Constitutional definition of 'Invasion'?

Why do you want to know, dug? Tell me why you want to know beyond what I've already said about interpretation and meaning.

The one who appears to be "surprised how close most people who read the Constitution actually come to the same meaning" at this point is only you. I am not suprised one way or another. I'm past that. You will not prove a thing by what you think will be my surprise. This is a strawman argument, I've already dispensed with it.

Your point will have nothing to do with anything I've said about theories of interpretation. Your point will not explain to me how you have so quickly and handily dismissed out of hand a theory (UET) based on your belief that:

Quote dugfmjamul:"The Constitution is a legal enduring binding document that means the same today as it did when the Constitution and its Amendments were ratified" (a statement of belief that the constitution can be interpreted according to its intended original meaning, i.e., "originalism, strict constructionism)

"The Constitution and 'Common Sense' go together like bread and butter"

"The Constitution in its words is plain and intelligible, and it is meant for the homebred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow citizens."

You will not have disproved that people can interpret the Constitution in different ways. Case in point, as related to the Presidency, using the strict constructionist and originalist interpretations that would follow from your above declarative sentences, would be to show that to write a memo/brief that explains to the President (Bush in this case) that he can, indeed, Constitutionally write a legal executive order that allows waterboarding and other extreme measures of questioning suspected terrorists, and there will be no question of it's legality, because it follows the strict constructionist guidelines of interpretation.

Sorry, dug, all you will be doing is what I've already said, you and I will be debating a meaning related to the Constitution until the cows come home. If it gets a little more complicated than an interpretation of the word "invasion," like for instance, what is the strict constructionist meaning of "departmentalism"

The importance of departmentalism to the unitary executive is it provides a constitutional underpinning for the president’s interpretive power, which lies at the heart of the unitary executive. Departmentalism can be traced to “Federalist 49,” in which Madison writes: “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers (source)

or "coordinate constructionism"

This approach holds that all three branches of the federal government have the power and duty to interpret the Constitution and that the meaning of the Constitution is determined through the dynamic interaction of all three branches. (source)

your or my interpretation of invasion, or any word or even a set of phrases, will fall away to other forms of abstraction that are simply not so easy to dither about. Our debate will not effect policy in any way. You will not convince me that I can agree with you about your ideas of interpreting the Constitution. You may at best show us how you convinced yourself. I'm just not interested in wasting effort on your little game. I see this is me going around in circles while you bob up and down clinging in desperation to your stick.

Quote dugfmjamul: I'M NOT TRYING TO BUST YOUR CHOPS

I assure you, you'd be wasting your effort if you were. What an arrogant thought...

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
If it gets a little more complicated than an interpretation of the word "invasion," like for instance, what is the strict constructionist meaning of "departmentalism" or "coordinate constructionism" your or my interpretation of invasion, or any word or even a set of phrases, will fall away to other forms of abstraction that are simply not so easy to dither about.

You would have a point and an argument if "departmentalism" or "coordinate constructionism" were actually in the Constitution, they’re not. So let’s dither about…..

What is the Constitutional definition of ‘Invasion’?

...that should be simple enough to discuss as civilized human beings, right?

..

DugFmJamul's picture
DugFmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 25, 2010 11:27 pm

Good Bye Progressive Seditionist Dirt Bags....

DugFmJamul has been banned again.....

CHEERS

GOOD NIGHT NOW!

DugFrmJamul's picture
DugFrmJamul
Joined:
Apr. 27, 2010 7:20 pm
Quote DugFrmJamul:Good Bye Progressive Seditionist Dirt Bags.... DugFmJamul has been banned again..... CHEERS GOOD NIGHT NOW!

I'm sorry you couldn't adapt, once again, dug. I was pretty patient with you. I hope you can get something of value for yourself here, if you are indeed genuine in your views. I do try, I do make an effort to address your posts and to avoid ad hominems as best I can, despite how frustrating I find it to be. I can only speak for myself, but I find it especially frustrating when seeing the following recur over and over, with no honest response to any of my own serious efforts on your part:

Quote DugFmJamul:
If it gets a little more complicated than an interpretation of the word "invasion," like for instance, what is the strict constructionist meaning of "departmentalism" or "coordinate constructionism" your or my interpretation of invasion, or any word or even a set of phrases, will fall away to other forms of abstraction that are simply not so easy to dither about.
You would have a point and an argument if "departmentalism" or "coordinate constructionism" were actually in the Constitution, they’re not. So let’s dither about…..
What is the Constitutional definition of ‘Invasion’?
...that should be simple enough to discuss as civilized human beings, right? ..

If you don't know that causes people to get upset, it might be worth some effort on your part to imagine it, and then imagine why the owners of this board may not want to see that atmosphere of upsetness engendered, whether you know you are creating it or not. Bottom line is this is a privately owned site. It's for Thom's benefit, as any business-oriented site is for its owner's benefit. They want people on the site, they want to see healthy, vibrant and vital conversation. At some point the rules can only help them keep it that way. I believe there's a correlation between that and interpreting the Constitution if you look closely.

The maddening aspect of your position is you appear to be taking a view that a Constitution written in the late 1700s, before anyone even knew there was going to be an Industrial Revolution, was intended as an operations manual for running the government, ad infinitum. Thankfully, bad as things may seem, others realize that the world changes and that if we are to have a rule of law that has any common sense relationship to the real world, somebody has to try to make some sense of some of the problems of interpretation. Even the most adament strict constructionists are able to recognize that.

Beyond that, it appears we can't even discuss the problems of interpreting this "operations manual" or even considering the likelihood that two or more people will disagree on the meanings of sets of ideas in the manual. If we can't do that, we can't even get to theory, theories like Departmentalism, or Coordinate Constructionism, which are theories that do relate to trying to read the original Constitution as written, and attempting to stay true to it within the realms of common sense.

I don't even know what you mean by "civilized human beings" at this point.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

The repooplicans have revived the dead concept of Socialism because they are powerless, helpless, and want to be back in the TV spotlight. They love being on TV. They love being inteviewd by the Fakes New Network.

But--------we Democrats are in charge of America now.

I think I'll go raise some taxes. Sorry 'bouts that, poops.

kwikfix
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 1:51 pm

Currently Chatting

You don't know what 'Libertarian' means...

If you want to know what libertarianism is all about, don’t ask a libertarian, because most of them don’t know.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system