Keeping the cold civil war from getting hot
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
We are in the midst of a cold civil war in which two very different visions of America are fighting. Central to the struggle is how we view the U.S. Constitution – one side reveres it as a peerless check on government power; the other, as a document so flawed that it should change rapidly with the times.
There's been loose talk over America's ideological divide becoming so bitter that it could lead to armed conflict.
A Democratic congressman quipped that if gun owners resisted with force his proposal to confiscate rifles, it would be a "short war" because the government has nuclear weapons. Right. The feds are going to nuke Texas.
The congressman (Eric Swalwell of California) has since taken a good amount of flak for his statement, which he said was a joke.
In any case, talk of violence should be chilled. Anyone hoping our current cold civil war of values turns hot should dig up a copy of Gone with the Wind or tour the Gettysburg battlefield, where 50,000 Americans in blue and gray were either killed, wounded or went missing over three days, with some maimed for life and others later dying of their wounds.
Or perhaps they should visit nearby Antietam, Maryland (aka the battle of Sharpsburg), where the single bloodiest day in American history took place, with about 23,000 casualties, plus many more deaths from disease in the days following the battle.
In Gone with the Wind, a clueless bunch of Southern young men at a party cheer the onset of war as if it were a glorious adventure. By the film's end, the hospital scenes amid the devastation of Atlanta bear grim witness to war's reality.
The best outcome of raising consciousness over war's devastation is not to turn pacifist; it's finding renewed respect and appreciation for those who serve sacrificially in the armed forces so we can live peaceful lives.
All this said, we truly are in the midst of a cold civil war in which two very different visions of America are fighting on other battlefields, such as courtrooms, legislatures, college campuses and in the media. Not to mention dining room tables and social media. Central to the struggle is how we view the U.S. Constitution.
On one side are conservatives. They revere the Constitution as a peerless check on government power that should be changed only with broad social acceptance and only through an orderly, difficult process. They see the document through the lens of the Declaration of Independence, which states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
This means that natural rights originate with God, not government, which cannot create them and has no right to abridge them.
On the other side are progressives, who believe in the living Constitution. This is the idea that the original document was so flawed that it should change rapidly with the times, with or without amendments. The primary method is having the courts rewrite it in ways that legislators – and the people who voted for them – never intended.
As Claremont Review of Books editor Charles R. Kesler notes in Hillsdale College's October "Imprimis" edition, the idea of the "living Constitution" arose with Woodrow Wilson, the most important progenitor of progressivism.
"Wilson called the spirt of the old Constitution Newtonian, after Isaac Newton, and that of the new Constitution Darwinian, after Charles Darwin. By Darwinian, Wilson meant that instead of being difficult to amend, the liberal Constitution would be easily amenable to experimentation and adjustment."
In practice, as Mr. Kesler puts it, "while keeping the outward forms of the old Constitution, the idea of a living Constitution would change utterly the spirit in which the Constitution was understood."
In the hands of progressive judges, the Constitution is an engine for social change. Instead of being a check on government power, it was and is seen as a blank check for the liberal agenda.
Since the middle of the 20th century, liberal courts have wielded the Constitution like a scythe. They righted some wrongs, such as ending school segregation through Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
But they also warred against elements that stand in the way of the growth of the state: Natural marriage; laws against taking innocent life in the womb; due process for property rights; the rule of law regarding immigration; religious liberty (they misread the First Amendment as ensuring freedom fromreligion, not of); the right of communities to ensure a minimal level of decency; and the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. Some of this is being righted by the current court, albeit we have a long way to go.
Meanwhile, goons of the progressive left continue to employ violence and censorship against opponents while the media pretend that any dissenters from the liberal agenda are consumed by "hate" and "white supremacy."
Standing athwart the current conflict is President Trump, whose policy victories, caustic style and taunting of the ruling elites have made him a lightning rod. Given all this, it's now nearly impossible in America's cold civil war to have civil conversations.
But it's still better than a hot war on U.S. soil.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
“In the hands of progressive judges, the Constitution is an engine for social change. Instead of being a check on government power, it was and is seen as a blank check for the liberal agenda.
Since the middle of the 20th century, liberal courts have wielded the Constitution like a scythe. They righted some wrongs, such as ending school segregation through Brown v. Board of Education(1954).
But they also warred against elements that stand in the way of the growth of the state: Natural marriage; laws against taking innocent life in the womb; due process for property rights; the rule of law regarding immigration; religious liberty (they misread the First Amendment as ensuring freedom fromreligion, not of); the right of communities to ensure a minimal level of decency; and the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. Some of this is being righted by the current court, albeit we have a long way to go.”
The self righteous usually seem to forget that free will is one of those rights. The secular US Constitution protects that particular unalienable right from unamerican christo-fascist scum that would attempt to usurp and impose their oppressive and warped version of alt-christianity upon the unwilling.
I kind of figured that today's Mueller news would bring out the veiled civil war and 2nd amendment threats. Flynn caved. bwah ha ha ha
There is more to the Constitution than the second amendment. Some of my favorites are the 14th amendment, the 21st amendment and the 26th amendment. Also Articles 1 through 3, laying out the separation of powers, is pretty awesome. You should read it.
The far far far far far right is at war with reality but realty is kicking their asses...
We are preserving the original intent of the constitution and defending American values from progressive threats to our God given rights and liberty.
That explains why shit for brains keeps trying to pass legislation.that violates the Constitution.
Thank you for so deftly making my very point so very succiently...
You have been told repeatably that Thomas Jefferson was not and did not refer to the Abrahamic god as the source of our rights, but still you post this religious nonsense. Our rights are natural in origin and come from the idea that they are inherent to us by the fact that we exist. Our nation was not founded on the Christian religion and in no way are religious conservatives permitted to filter the secular and religious rights of everyone else via their conservative interpretation of the Bible. Your bible is no more relevant to our laws than the Koran, The Satanic bible the I-Ching, orHarryy Potter. Both the seperation of church and state and the freedom of religion or lack thereof are irrefutable proof that we are not required to believe in or bow to your god as US citizens. The Bible is not now and never was part of the source of our laws, despite the fact that many people may believe that to be true because that idea would be an example of tyranny of the majority and would fly in the face of the Bill of Rights and equal rights for all people and not just for the white hetero Christian majority.
The US Constitution must change with the time for the country to stay vibrant and relevant and the SCOTUS is the source and the power of that constitutional interpretation, despite your howls of religious outrage. If the Constitution wasn't permitted to change then we would have no need for the SCOTUS to interpret it. We would simply look at the words and see if that idea was mentioned and if it wasn't it would be struck down as unconstitutional, but the Marbury decision makes it very clear that is not the case. Conservatives such as yourself are terrified of the idea that the county is evolving and you no longer have absolute power so you put forth these assinine ideas that everyone else hates the Constitution because we will not go along with your outrageous claims and remain servile to your social beliefs.
The constitution can be changed. 2/3rds of the states can call for change that 3/4 of the states ratify or 2/3 of both houses propose change and 3/4 of the states ratify it. If something needs change badly enough, the consensus will be reached to do so. If there is no such consensus, it doesn’t need to be changed.
There is no role for the Supreme Court to rule on issues of constitutional interpretation under your idea because your idea would render them unable to rule. Obviously that is incorrect because they are the 3rd leg of the checks and balance system and must have that power, which was established with the Marbury v. Madison decision. You need to read a book on political science and stop getting your information from far-right websites.
Actually Jefferson's position on changing the constitution was that only the people have the right to amend it. they can do that two ways. The first is congress can pass and put forth an amendment but 3/4ths of the states and people have to approve it before it becomes effective.....
Or the people can put forth an amendment through the states governments/legislatures of which the people have to approve it by a super-majority....
There is a third way but I think that is impossible in this day and age.... Get 2/3rds of the states/people to call a constitutional convention. (that would put the entire document on the table)
The Supreme Court has no role in any of those scenarios of changing the constitution.... it is expressly forbidden under the constitution.....
Only the people can change it.... Marbury vs Madison was a usurpation where the court granted themselves the right to interpret the constitution, not change it...
I think it is you who needs a course in civics and the constitution...
Your ideas also fly in the face of Federalist Paper #78 written by Alexander Hamilton. It seems that you are the person who is lacking in your knowledge of US History and civics.
Supreme Court Justice John Marshall also disagrees with you.
Yeah the Marshal Court, Do you know why in legal circles that a court is generally named after it's chief justice?
And the leading federalist of his day (Hamilton) writing a federalist opinion prior to the usurpation of Marbury....
And Marshall, also a federalist who didn't want the chief justice's position on the court (in fact wanted nothing to do with the court at first) but was convinced by Washington to take it..... Writing a very strongly worded opinion that the court to serve as the constitution required it to function required the ability to decide issues as to how they fit within the framework, and how that framework (the constitution) was to be applied....
And if you read what Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78 before the court was even founded, in no way does it state in principle that the SC had the right to decide how the constitution was to be interpreted... in fact taken right from your snippet....
Very clear and concise no ambiguity there...
Very clear here also, the constitution dictates over all statutes.... they one job was to see that the law written by congress fits and stays within within the constraints of the constitution......
Marbury changed all that, the Court took the power to interpret the constitution itself..... which isn't a power vested in them by the constitution....
The Congress nor the Executive branches have chosen to bitch slap the court back into it's constitutional place which is well within their power. And at this point in time probably impossible to do.....
Seems to me that some twisting of Hamilton's clearly stated position is taking place to justify judicial activism.....
What do you believe the role of the SCOTUS is, if it isn't constitutional interpretation, as stated by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist paper? Why didn't Jefferson, Madison, and Adams fix the situation if Justice John Marshall was out of line when he decided Marbury? They certainly could have done so with a constitutional amendment but they chose not to do it because they were satisfied with how the SCOTUS acted. Do you know more than they did?
Did not everyone learn by fifth grade that our government consisted of three coequal branches the judicial branch of which being charged with insuring our constitutional rights are not violated by the other branches? Some yahoos still seem to be under the mistaken belief that they can just vote away, or in Trump's case merely sign away, any of our constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms...
Those yahoos are W R O N G.
I thought that the concept of 3 equal branches as a check and balance of power was an elementary school social studies concept, but apparently I was wrong because many adults still do not understated that concept.
If these people do not support the role of the SCOTUS as constitutional interpretation then what is its function in the federal government? The SCOTUS is not needed if you believe in a literalist reading of the US Constitution, but history has illustrated very clearly that literalists are always hypocrites when the situation suits their own pet ideas.
The legal philosophy of Constitutional Interpretation isn't the issue, what IS at issue is interpretation to the EXTENT that was intended by the Founders as illustrated by Hamilton in the Federalist #78.
Political parties didn't form in actuality until after Washington left office, and to have a rational discussion of the question of why those particular founders didn't act would necessitate a discussion of their political positions relative to one another.... Adams was a Federalist, (one of Jeffersons "Tories" with a strong belief in an all powerful federal government) Jefferson and Madison were Democrat-Republicans, (Jefferson's "Whigs", with a strong belief in the limitations of federal power, the citizen being the ultimate "Ruler" of the nation) Any discussion of why Marbury was left to stand as judicial precedent by both the Congress and administrative branches needs to take the politics of the day into account.
No, they didn't need a constitutional amendment. all they needed was the two branches hampered by the Courts decision needed to work together to reverse the import of the decision. And at that point in time, given the retirement of Washington and his apolitical views coupled with the fractiousness of the newly formed parties, no compromise on any action to restore the constitutions intent could be carried.... Yes the political divisions we deal with today were well in place and actively functioning within 8 years after ratification of the constitution and the retirement of it's formalizations ethical leader.
No I don't, all I have to go on is what they wrote, and the Federalist #78 is just one of those documents. In fact Hamilton's essay on the Judiciary extends to 5 of the Federalist papers #78 only being the first. And then there is also their works, (their private correspondence at the time) which is where they express their viewpoints on intent much more eloquently that in any published writings.
You claim to be educated in their (The Founders) specific intent and that such education is junior high school level instruction.... Also, in that your allusion is to me having less than your specific knowledge.
I do not know actually how much knowledge you may or may not have, as well as you do not in the opposition.
So I'm going to make an offer I don't make very often.
You care to have a discussion with me on the Founders intent concerning Judicial Interpretation? Just you and me, no allusions cast about either, just an examination of the issue based upon the documents produced by the progenitors of the constitution and the principle of judicial interpretation and it's limits in government.
You game?
Why do you continue to bring up George Washington because he is irrelevant to the Marbury decision? There was no reason to act after Marbury because Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Hamilton agreed that the SCOTUS worked as desired to solve issues of constitutional interpretation so it was left as is. Trying to undue the Marbury decision as a way to limit the power of the SCOTUS is impossible and would undo 200+ of legal precedents. What action would you have preferred they make after Marbury?
What is your problem with the power of the courts as a check and balance to the power of the executive and the legislative. If the SCOTUS doesn't have this power to rule on constitutionality, then who makes these decisions of constitutional interpretation? How does the SCOTUS work as a check and balance if it doesn't have this power? We would have two powerful branches and a weak judicial branch.
If you do not understand the historical context, then you cannot understand the point of what is being said.
All you have is an understanding of what you WANT it to be while discarding everything that makes it what it IS.....
I have no problem with checks and balances, I have an absolute belief in the wisdom of the founders and they were all about checks and balances on the tyranny of the few against the many.
You are focusing solely on the need for the power without giving one damn about the reason WHY....
And the reason WHY is the most important part....
Without a grounding in the reason why and the resulting limitations on the power based upon the why, application of the power becomes tyrranical in effect, where a few can use the power to dominate the many....
This was the basis of the constitutional convention, creating limits on governmental power.
If what you are promulgating, (and the parts you are avoiding) is the basis of your knowledge of how it works, I would suggest researching more and finding out the true nature of our government, it's branches, and their constitutional duties and limitations, at least what it is supposed to be.
You seen to believe I have a problem with judicial interpretation, I really don't. what I have a problem with is the EXTENT of constitutional interpretation the court assumed in Marbury. The actual issue in Marbury had nothing to do with the extent of the courts powers. the case was solely about judicial appointments and when they became effective. The court actually said Marbury was right, ruling against Jefferson's policies as implemented by Madison.
But then ruled against him.
Cause the court struck a political deal with Jefferson over the ability to interpret the constitution, Jefferson got the ruling he wanted and the court got the power it wanted.
And NONE of this would have ever happened if Washington had agreed to a third term.... In fact it couldn't have happened as long as Washington was in office.
That is the political environment of the times and needs to be understood to fully understand the issue and how it came to be.
Are you going to say that the point of the court doing what it did (the WHY) is irrelevant to today?
Is that what your really arguing?
This 'issue' is simple to fix.
Take all of the Trumpers and Trumpetts and relegate them into civil servitude for the Trumpian elites. Problem solved. The billionaires have their serfs and the serfs finally have their calling.
The vast majority of the rich are democrat and on the progressive left. The urban socialist paradises have the rich and the surfs as the middle and working classes are forced to the exurbs to survive and escape high taxes.
Like I said. The Trumpers and Trumpetts have their calling. The ( Mega Factory Farms ) need turnip sorters.
Sorry but we are not going to serve you in any way shape or form. We are unrepentant of and are doubling down on our support of Trump. The harder and more vicious the attacks on Trump the stronger our defense of him will become in direct proportion.
Sad part is Trump would not piss on a MAGA crowd if they were on fire...
He holds all those poor dumb MAGA hat wearing numb nuts in contempt.
This attitude is exactly why I try so hard to stay civil and give realistic reasons for why I think president trump has his faults (many of them major in my opinion) but downplaying even that I think may help some people realise this man has some problems that may well affect all of us before its over.
Someday I do believe trump will go too far and the slope down hill for him will quickly accelerate, when that happens people who have already seen some of the problems of this man may be quicker to understand its time to move on.
I dont let myself get too attached to any politician they all have problems and most change like the wind to get and keep power. I do not trust them or the current system riddled with corruption for the wealthiest americans having more control over who represents us than the masses do.
Time will tel the real results of the trump presidency , both positive and negative, short term and long.
Hopefully the net effect will be positive, But only time will really tell us. Personally I think this man's attitude itself is a problem that will lead to many more.
We'll see.
Depends on what HE gets for it.
Which explains much...with wealth comes education and common sense to grow your wealth. Then there is the stupisity of following a criminal and liar doubling down with unrepentant support of a guy that takes your money while he says he's saving you money.
And they don't ever learn.
The Tea Party soaked them and that was the intention. Dick Armey, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin walked away with your money.
They led you around by the nose and while they had you chanting "Lock her up!" For a crime they never intended to find, they filled their pockets with your money.
Intelligence has much to do with having wealth and since studies show most Trump supporters barely made it through High School if they even did it's easy for them to double down on stupid.
Progressives are a doubling down on stupid. They are the destroyers of the great middle class and the working class.
trump would hire a russian prostitute or tell the FLOTUS to do that
The middle class only exists because of progressive policies such as unions, minimum wage, corporate regulations and the 8-hour day.
Really? That's what you have? Some canned bullshit response with not a shred of thought?
Your seeds are spoon feeding the ignorance you were fed.
The article's title is really thought provoking and catchy. I really like it. Everything underneath.........eh, not so much.
The article was absolutely brilliant and well written. It was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me, ...
X - to be honest, I am hoping for an all out civil war. I do not call anyone who supports trump a fellow American. There is something missing in their souls that they could support a man such as Trump.
That would be the words and actions of Donald Trump that cause people to refuse to support him.
I'm amazed that Trump had sufficient support of conservative Americans to even get to the general election. The man is a amoral scumbag from the very start.
That would be stupidity missing from the minds of those who refuse to support this President.
oooooh......me, me, me! That's me! I've been bitching and whining since BEFORE he was elected and I refuse to stop.
No sirree bob (or Tex).
Exactly right. I remember the msm and the left in general and their bitterness since the moment Podesta spoke at Hillary’s victory party to the crying masses assembled there. Not to mention the riots in the streets of their cities.
Well, it makes me very happy that my principles are intact. My morals cannot be purchased. Watching Trump everyday and listening to his base just reinforces that I am doing the right thing.
I'm completely and totally okay with being anti Trump.
Well you know what they say..... There's a sucker born every day.
(sorry but you kinda walked right into that one)
You and Donnie out there watching the Muslims dancing in the street too?
I was wondering the same thing. What does all the whining and crying and rage accomplish ?
No way Tex. You can't use my line against me. I said it first so it's mine, mine, mine! You're going to have to come up with your own witty response.
People who reject facts in favor of beliefs might be at the top of the list.
Hillary was the lesser of two evils. I voted against Trump.
Can your read or are you just being obtuse? Do you understand the concept of the lesser of two evils? I told you that I voted for sHillary Clinton even if I didn't like her because she was a better choice than Trump.
Voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away. It was assumed that you understood that I voted for Hillary because she was Trump's major opponent. It isn't my fault that you aren't capable of understanding the concept of the lesser of two evils.
My reply was very clear.
Where do you get this idea?
That isn't my fault.
You are projecting your own ideas. I've never claimed to be brilliant because I feel like an idiot 75% of the time.
The voters didn't choose trump, the electoral college did.
No, I meant the popular vote total to address the error in the semantics of that comment.
The electoral college is all that matters in Presidential elections. There is nothing more meaningless in a presidential election than urban New York and California voters beyond 50%+1 in those states.
Well, kinda. They had Tiki torches and were shouting "Jews will not replace us" while Trump called some of them fine people.
The voters didn't elect Trump, a bunch of guys in a room elected him. It's called the Electoral College.
Which was just fine with you, your entire life until someone was elected by it you don't like.
You know, you will be one of the first casualties, right? BTW, the right are the people that defend your right to own weapons, and generally they have the vast majority of weapons and ammunition.
Wishing for an all out civil war is disgusting and it is death-wishing to approx. half the country. People who talk of hoping there's an 'all out civil war' disgust me and show just how poorly their own morals are.
Where have I said that I like the Electoral College? It is an antiquated rule that should be eliminated, it dates back to a time when slave owners in states didn't have the white male population to vote their man into office using the popular vote nationally.
Funny, we didn't hear a peep out of you when the mantra from the right was "second amendment solution"
Noticeably absent when the militias were drawing down on federal officials doing their job dealing with a deadbeat rancher.
the EC, and in part the 2nd amendment, were included to appease slave owners in order to get the Constitution ratified. when the EC results don't more closely parallel the popular vote it proves that it can be gamed. in 3 of the last 4 times the winner of the popular vote has lost in the EC, which has occurred twice in this century, the result has been a republican president. the original intent of the process has been altered by winner take all states and 4 different time zones in a modern need to know now media centered culture, which could be remedied by addressing both issues.
having guns and ammo is useless if the hands to operate them suffer from rigor mortise. the 2nd was a progressive idea, as was taking up arms against a tyrannical government. people left of center right own guns too and the provisions of the 2nd benefit them equally.
... yet still the ultimate right of an oppressed majority. the idea that a modern civil war would be anything like the last one is the myopic viewpoint shared by those that believe an elected office is beyond the reach of the law. the people that invented non-conventional warfare, modern insurgency, and organized terrorism against oppressive government, are the same people that produced the US Constitution as the rule of law. eliminating the private armies of the wealthy, armed security, that are involuntarily funded by the taxpayers as a business expense, can be accomplished with a single piece of legislation that removes that particular deduction, making it too expensive for all but a few, and holding all that can fully accountable for their actions.
rightwing extremists are free to wave their guns around wherever they want, but the litmus test of true patriotism is just around the corner, for all to choose between whether freedom is represented by a document or a person holding an elected office. choose wisely.
Trump was a product of the American media that wanted an opponent Hillary could beat in a land slide. Too bad he played the media badly. Used the media to win the nomination; and then relied on Hillary to forget/alienate fly over country to win the WH.
Oh and it wasn't all conservatives that supported Trump. Can't forget the alienated Bernie Sanders supporters that either didn't vote or supported Trump over Hillary.
I agree. A hot civil war would be a very bad thing for all of us. It’s a horrible thing to wish upon our nation.
It was designed to protect the people from small population states from the large ones. It is a good check on mob rule.
The solution is the Maine and Nebraska method where one gets the electoral vote in a state by winning in each congressional district with the two EC votes representing the states senators going to the winner of the popular vote for each state. This makes most all states battleground states and gets rid of winner take all and doesn’t require amending the constitution.
huh? You hate Obama. Are you going to sit there and actually try to convince all of us that you supported him?????
I was born in the afternoon but not yesterday afternoon
removed for context
pardon?
I have access to a dictionary, thank you, tho.
I just don't know what you're talking about
removed for context
removed for context
Sad because you don't have your own fans?
removed for context
just because Carter was a southern pastor, contrary to the usual norm for that region and vocation, it doesn't confirm he was a pedophile. if you mean slick, those groupies were all over the age of consent and wanted to have their tonsils flocked, you know, like some of trumps temporary girlfriends that didn't file lawsuits. I'm sure they're still out there, waiting for the next check.
It was designed to protect slave owners and, white men from losing a source of income, nothing more.
3 million people disagree with you.
if you [wish to debate the point,] do it [, by all means, at least attempt] to [do it.]
[But do] it [without] the [sweeping racist generalizations]
and [personal attacks.]
[Deleted. Take it] to [Meta.]
Maybe some reading is in order,
"Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.” Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system."
You have the House now, get started on an amendment!
One, it would be easier to pass a law in a divided Congress that it would be to get all 50 states to agree to a new amendment. Two, there are bigger worries in elections than the Electoral College, take note of what's happening in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, North Dakota and, a few other states.
So we aren't going to see the end of the electoral college anytime soon? In that case candidates will still have to traverse the country instead of just showing up in LA and NYC.
Good to know
I don't know, I'm not a member of Congress, write your Congressman for that answer.
I actually liked Obama when he ran in the primaries in 2008. His speeches were interesting and he seemed better than the wicked witch. And I didn’t care for McCain. I thought he was something different in a positive way. Then came the Rev. Wright and Palling around with terrorist Ayers and Dorn revelations. That and McCain picking Palin ended all interest in Obama by me.
Like California......
Nah, going to be too busy exposing criminals like Nunes, Trump and his sperm catchers, the voter fraud in North Carolina and trying to cishion for the approaching economic implosion brought on by Trump and the Republicans
Nothing is happening in California and, unless you can prove it then you are simply deflecting, however, the proof that something is happening in North Carolina can be proven just as what is happening in Wisconsin, North Dakota and, Michigan can be proven. Republicans are sore losers just as much as they are sore winners and, the proof can be seen in what is happening in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan and, North Dakota.
Got anything that isn't liberal centric?
Anything that doesn't make a conclusion first then adapts history to prove their pre-conclusion?
Interesting that non of those cites go anywhere near the founders and what was actually discussed in the convention on the actual why of the electoral college. I mean come on, what they actually reasoned and debated and decided is irrelevant....
The whacko position is the truth.
Each of those links advocated getting dumber......
Opinions over facts....
Who cares what they think? All votes above 50%+1 are meaningless in any given states popular vote for that states electors.
Well said. We don’t condition our love of and support for our exceptional nation based on whether our side won the last presidential election or not. We love our country even if we disagree with the President on policy issues. Too bad the other side can’t see it that way too.
You won’t see it anytime soon as no act of Congress alone even with a presidential signature can change it.
And in other states and some of the above when democrats lose the governorship they have had lame duck sessions to limit the power of in coming GOP governors. It’s nothing new.
Me either.
link?
I call bullshit. Prove it.
"Do you agree that the Far Left despises the U.S. Constitution?"
No. Do you agree that the Far Right loves to eat warm dog shit for breakfast? This ridiculous article makes the claim that we're in a cold civil war then claims conservatives as true Americans and defenders of the constitution while it paints the "leftists" as evil outsiders trying to destroy the constitution without any actual evidence, just a bunch of rhetorical platitudes and taking a congressman's obvious attempt at a joke and claiming the liberals are the ones who want to nuke conservatives.
Then it switches gears and says "talk of violence should be chilled". Great, get your side all riled up telling them leftists want to rip up the constitution, then hedge by saying everyone should just calm down.
Then the article quickly attempts to demonize the left again.
"Since the middle of the 20th century, liberal courts have wielded the Constitution like a scythe. They righted some wrongs, such as ending school segregation through Brown v. Board of Education (1954)."
I love how he says so offhandedly "They righted some wrongs" as if the things liberals have been fighting for since our founding weren't all that important, then mentions one tiny sliver of what they fought against and won with school segregation. But liberals fight goes back much further.
Liberals fought slavery, segregation, the unconstitutional bans on blacks and women voting, the unconstitutional bans on interracial marriage, the unconstitutional bans on gay marriage, and they fought for woman to have rights and control over their own bodies. They fought for union rights and workplace safety laws, they fought for the social safety net that protects our elderly from falling through the cracks of society to die on the street as they once did. Those are the things that have made us a more perfect union over the 240 years of our Democratic constitutional Republic experiment. Only conservatives have fought such progress and enlightenment tooth and nail, clinging to the past like a child's blanket, screaming and crying as each of their old favorites is stripped away from them as they continually lose the battle against progress.
"But they also warred against elements that stand in the way of the growth of the state: Natural marriage; laws against taking innocent life in the womb; due process for property rights; the rule of law regarding immigration; religious liberty (they misread the First Amendment as ensuring freedom from religion, not of); the right of communities to ensure a minimal level of decency; and the Second Amendment's right to bear arms."
So the religious right think they get to define "Natural marriage", define "decency", define immigration law (which they're the only ones violating right now by refusing immigrants the right to apply for asylum) and get to define when a mass of cells becomes a human. And they define it all through their religious lens of an interpreted book cobbled together hundreds of years after the events by a Roman Emperor, and thus force their faith on secular society. They claim if you don't let them define these things, than you're trying to tear up the constitution! Oh, and they claim the left is trying to shred the 2nd amendment yet there is zero evidence submitted for this, it's now just rhetorical nonsense often repeated by the right. Universal background checks, limits on magazine capacity, bans on bump stocks or some assault rifles, none of that violates the 2nd amendment as Justice Scalia ruled, the 2nd amendment is not unlimited and we have many laws preventing civilians from owning certain weapons of war.
So no wonder there is a rift in America. We have religious conservatives who believe it's their constitutional right to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else, claiming "they misread the First Amendment as ensuring freedom from religion, not of" implying that while their religion should be completely protected from any government interference, non-believers should have no such protections from the religious. And on top of that they're lying about the left claiming we want to take all your guns away and get rid of the 2nd amendment which is total bull shit.
We would all be a lot more peaceful, a lot less angry and a lot happier if we all agreed to leave our faith at home and in our churches where we can practice all we want, but when you enter secular society you should refrain from proselytizing and stop basing your vote for candidates on how much you believe they'll inject your brand of religion into government. "Pay back Caesars things to Caesar, and Gods things to God." Even the bible says to treat the world separately, the secular world of taxes and governance and the spirit world which can be different for every single person on the planet which means we have some 7 billion versions of religion out there and no one actually knows which is right. Because religious beliefs are up to each individual, we shouldn't be using such a subjective system to govern secular life. It's unnecessary and simply causes confusion and division.
So if you're on either side of the debate, just stop for a second, think about what you're really fighting about. Is anyone trying to force you to give up your religion? Is anyone trying to force you to be gay or marry a gay? Is there really any evidence of a war on Christmas when the advertisements seem to come earlier and earlier each year? Is anyone trying to force you to sin in any way? Even the baking of a cake for a gay wedding isn't a sin as far as I can tell. I've read the bible numerous times cover to cover and I've never found such a law within. Not even one saying not to help a sinner, in fact it's the exact opposite. Christ dined with the prostitutes and tax collectors, but I guess that bar is too low for Christians today, they have to refuse to serve those they have judged as "sinners". Maybe, just maybe, after reflecting on who's really trying to force their beliefs on others and trying to legislate their subjective opinions, we can all agree to disagree and go about our daily lives without any conflict. I welcome Christians and serve them in my business, I just assume they'd do the same for any law abiding tax paying American citizen.
Well, most NEED their Captain America's
On both sides....
The seeded article was 100% correct regarding all that was written in it.
You should have saved your obvious bump.
God given rights are a theory, that must be enforceable by government or a controlling authority, or else they are of little use. One assumes that women have always had a "god given right" to drive a car in Saudi Arabia, but until recently, when the government changed its rules, they had no practical right to do so.
As for the constitution, EVERY Supreme Court decision is an interpretation. The idea that conservative judges or justices don't interpret the constitution is utter nonsense.
Also, the rules that govern a society must change and adapt as the society grows and changes. Rules from 250 years ago should be looked at broadly, with an adherence to principles and not necessarily specifics.
When the Supreme Court , or any court, rules on "privacy" issues, for example, they are interpreting the principles of the constitution because there were no privacy issues in the 1780's that compare to what we face today.
The constitution was just fine before progressives began messing with it. It along with our founding document the Declaration of Independence are the two most enlightened documents ever written solely by people.
Citizens United is a great example of that concept!
Corporations are people?????
I agree Corporations are people. It's right there in the definition.
Are we counting the $1.25 million a month spent by Putin on behalf of the Trump campaign?
The Magna Carta must be part of that list and is more important than the Declaration, that is fundamentally a declaration of divorce from King George.
The US Constitutional was a radically liberal document for the time because of the separation of church and state and the power that was put in the hands of the people. The conservatives (Tories) at the time of the revolution often fled to Canada to support the English crown, so don't try to paint the constitution as a bastion of conservative thinking.
It's been proven that Russia wanted Trump to win and spent over $20 million in direct media ads in his favor. While Clinton spent $768 million total, and Trump spent just under $400 million, one has to ask what the illegally stolen Democrat emails were worth. They certainly had a massive impact. And how much would the removal of sanctions have been worth to the Russians?
" Adding the FDI losses from where they would be if Russia was again booming and a la mode in the rest of the world, a rough calculation of the money the showdown with the west will cost Russia this year would be on the order of $150bn , not including the cancelled IPOs, SPOs and bond issues."
So that was the collateral for Russian aid in the 2016 election, just because the plans got revealed and the sanctions were never removed doesn't mean that wasn't the real price tag on offer.
So Hillary spent $768 million.
Trump spent almost $398 million , plus the promise of $160 billion a year to Russia for their help getting him elected.
That's an awful lot of motivation and the kind of thing that could have a government with the GDP the size of Mexico scrabbling using whatever assets they may have to help the candidate promising them such a windfall to win.
100% agreement, it was a pedestal of Classic Liberal thinking. You know, enlightenment thinking..... (libertarian thinking)
But there is a historical context that must be taken into account.....
Conservative in the context you are using is simply described as a person who advocates against change....
And in that context the Tories of the American Revolution could not understand why the colonists wanted change when being subject to the crown had been quite sufficient for them and their precedents for so many hundreds of years.... they fit completely within your definition of conservative. The problem comes when you equate conservatives of that era with conservatives of this era.
It is a rather simpleton argument, one that reveals a complete lack of any understanding of political change over time and a lack of knowledge of plain history. Conservatives of today are no more Tories than the Liberals of today are Marxists or Communists....
But I do believe you know what you are doing so conflating today's conservatives with the tories of old is an attempt to claim that the Conservatives of today are the Statists (or monarchists) of old. Hence justifying the accusation of being Fascists..... (all fascists are statists)
Nice try.... but a massive failure because of your deliberate conflation...... anyone well versed in history with knowledge of the historical context will laugh uproariously at such.
And we all know Classic Liberals are not in any way progressive in their thinking...... WE do not believe in change for change's sake or change cause it is the Art Nouveau thing to do. Change for changes sake gains a society nothing of lasting value, change because we need to improve is better.
And right now we don't need change in society, we need change in behavior.
Which is a moral character thing, not a law or societal rules thing.
Making conflations like you did here, is simply a thinly disguised insult intended to demean those you disagree with, and is a perfect example of the behavior that needs changing...
Stop trying to move the goalposts to create a strawman that you will later argue against. I didn't say that it was libertarian or classically liberal, as they currently try to present themselves.
What strawman? and no moving goalposts just the facts ma'm
If your going to relate current ideals against historical ideals then you HAVE to take the historical context into account, otherwise you come across foolish at best or at worst a conflationary ideologue trying to re-write the plain truths of history....
humorous is what it really is....
No you didn't say anything about Classic Liberalism or Libertarianism you studiously avoided any reference to the actual driving force of the creation of this society.....
Because you as a progressive wish to usurp the history to paint your progressive movement as better than all the rest.....
A claim that fails on so many levels it is ludicrous....
By all means the Magna Carta was a very important beginning to the age of the enlightenment. John Locke also is a true hero to liberty loving people everywhere.