Pirates of the Constitution

(Click to expand)

Regards
S.

[Nono]

Ah, you Canadians. Always trying to get the horn in.:)

[Milton Bradley]

Ironically, it seems SDBest wouldn't know a pirate if he saw one.


( That is him over in the universal healthcare thread advocating shredding the constitution, is it not...)

Quote by: Milton Bradley Ironically, it seems SDBest wouldn't know a pirate if he saw one. ( That is him over in the universal healthcare thread advocating shredding the constitution, is it not...)

Milton, Milton how petty of you. Personal insults in lieu of intelligent debate. It's not my picture. I merely posted it. It's poor form to take your ire out on the messenger.

Shredding the constitution? How does one go about doing that?

Regards
S.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: sdbest Milton, Milton how petty of you. Personal insults in lieu of intelligent debate. It's not my picture. I merely posted it. It's poor form to take your ire out on the messenger.

We tend not to shoot the messenger when it's clear that he is on our side. With you, old chap, I'm not so sure.

Quote by: sdbest Shredding the constitution? How does one go about doing that?

You know, by advocating things that the constitution won't support, and claiming it should be the law of the land.

Quote by: Milton Bradley We tend not to shoot the messenger when it's clear that he is on our side. With you, old chap, I'm not so sure.

We have to choose sides? How inconvenient.

Quote by: Milton Bradley You know, by advocating things that the constitution won't support, and claiming it should be the law of the land.

Actually, old chap, because the Constitution has an amending formula, it can support anything from an imperial, absolute monarchy (which you have now with King George and Prince Dick) to Marxist Communism.

Notwithstanding the Constitution and the various supporting documents, the American people can choose whatever form of government they want. The can even democratically abandon all their rights to be safe from the enemies of the state, just as the Italians did with Mussolini, the Germans did with Hitler, and the U.S. is doing under King George. All constitutional, all legal.

The Constitution is a piece of enabling legislation that can be changed at any time. It is not a Scripture.


Regards
S.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: sdbest We have to choose sides? How inconvenient.

Well, if you are talking to Americans about the constitution, yes, I think you need to choose sides.

Quote by: sdbest Actually, old chap, because the Constitution has an amending formula, it can support anything from an imperial, absolute monarchy (which you have now with King George and Prince Dick) to Marxist Communism.

I never hear any of you talking about ammending the constitution, just blathering on about how we are "so behind the times".

Quote by: sdbest Notwithstanding the Constitution and the various supporting documents, the American people can choose whatever form of government they want. The can even democratically abandon all their rights to be safe from the enemies of the state, just as the Italians did with Mussolini, the Germans did with Hitler, and the U.S. is doing under King George. All constitutional, all legal.

Ha! ( That paragraph deserves little more than to be made fun of. )

Quote by: sdbest The Constitution is a piece of enabling legislation that can be changed at any time. It is not a Scripture.

Indeed, but we are talking about our current government, and I think it should be clear to all by now that these criminals have zero respect for that document.


The only time people within our goverment even brought up ammending the document in recent history was an attempt to make gay marraige illegal.


So please, pick a side so we can decide whether to love, or hate you.

Quote by: Milton Bradley So please, pick a side so we can decide whether to love, or hate you.

What are the sides? In this corner we have _______ ? And, in the opposing corner, we have _____________? Then again, perhaps there are more than two sides.

Love and hate? Nothing in between?

Regards
S.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: sdbest What are the sides? In this corner we have _______ ? And, in the opposing corner, we have _____________? Then again, perhaps there are more than two sides.

Well, I would tell you there are at least threee sides. We have the group true to the original document ( Libertarians, Constitutionalists ), you have the American socialists ( Democrats ), and you have the American fascists ( Republicans ).

Quote by: sdbest Love and hate? Nothing in between?

Not really a lot of room for anybody to be in between on issues this critical to our nation. Sorry.


Perhaps you can relate to this analogy...


Either you're with us, or against us.


Does that work for you?

[billybobama]

If you study real U.S. History you will find that the Republican Party has always tried to destroy the U.S. Constitution and create a Fascist State.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Perhaps you can relate to this analogy... Either you're with us, or against us. Does that work for you?

Absolutely. If the choice is between "with us" and "against us" then I'm against you as a matter of principle, and as a practical matter of national and global security. The world in not black and white and those who think it is are threat to everyone.


Regards
S.

Quote by: billybobama If you study real U.S. History you will find that the Republican Party has always tried to destroy the U.S. Constitution and create a Fascist State.

... and--in cahoots with extremist Christians--have just about succeeded.

Regards
S.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: sdbest Absolutely. If the choice is between "with us" and "against us" then I'm against you as a matter of principle, and as a practical matter of national and global security.

Heh, you chose wrong side there pardner, because clearly the side you have chosen does not respect the law, or the contracts they sign with others.

Quote by: sdbest The world in not black and white and those who think it is are threat to everyone.

The constitution is pretty much black, and white when read with the understanding that they were using definitions that were the understood at the time.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Heh, you chose wrong side there pardner, because clearly the side you have chosen does not respect the law, or the contracts they sign with others.

I didn't choose a side, Grasshopper. I said I was opposed to your side.

Quote by: Milton Bradley The constitution is pretty much black, and white when read with the understanding that they were using definitions that were the understood at the time.

If we had remained with "the understanding that they were using definitions that were the understood at the time", neither women nor blacks nor non-property owners would have the right to vote today.

Or which version of the Constitution are you promoting, today's or that of 1787? Perhaps one of the versions in between? Many Constitutional changes have taken place over the last two centuries in the U.S., because many things are not "black and white" as all reasonable, just people understand. Moreover, often what we once thought was "black" turns out to be "white."

And, I oppose the side of unreasonable, unjust people--as a matter of principle and my constitutional rights.

Regards
S.

[billybobama]

Quote by: sdbest ... and--in cahoots with extremist Christians--have just about succeeded. Regards S.

Religion is always the foundation of Fascism.

[Kamehameha34]

I didn't choose a side, Grasshopper. I said I was opposed to your side.

If you aren't X, then you are Y.
You aren't X.
You are __.

Fill in the blank.

If we had remained with "the understanding that they were using definitions that were the understood at the time", neither women nor blacks nor non-property owners would have the right to vote today. [Insert irrelevant tangent about amendment process]

You see, this is your fatal error in judgement. You think the fact that laws exist makes them constitutional.

The institution of slavery was unconstitutional, even with the constitution at the time. It was allowed because of political pressure.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If you aren't X, then you are Y. You aren't X. You are __. Fill in the blank.

I am L, P, 1, V, JK, and VG.

Sometimes, in fact most times, there are more than two choices-and most of us, thankfully, can count higher than two.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You see, this is your fatal error in judgement. You think the fact that laws exist makes them constitutional. The institution of slavery was unconstitutional, even with the constitution at the time. It was allowed because of political pressure.

Do you not understand that there is a difference between what is just and what is constitutionally sanctioned? Slavery laws may have been wrong but they were upheld by the Supreme Court (read the Dred Scott case)--and therefore constitutional by definition--until a later court overturned them.

Your mistake is that you're conflating law and justice or principles. The Constitution is about laws, not principles like slavery.

For the record, this is the same fantastic hobby horse you've been driving into the ground on another thread. We know that there is no information or fact or precedent no matter how compelling that will alter your dogmatic view.

Enjoy your day in court making your absurd arguments.

Regards
S.

[Kamehameha34]

Sometimes, in fact most times, there are more than two choices-and most of us, thankfully, can count higher than two.

We'll rehash this when you're learned enough to actually defend one of the two sides.

Slavery laws may have been wrong but they were upheld by the Supreme Court (read the Dred Scott case)--and therefore constitutional by definition--until a later court overturned them.

Wrong.. I've been explaining this to you for hours, and you've been listening with the capacity of a brick wall.

If a law is passed without conflict, or even upheld, then it exists constitutionally. As in, unconstitutional laws can exist in the US constitutionally. In cases where the supreme court is wrong, it doesn't invalidate the deductive reasoning that proves the law unconstitutional.

That's where your arguments fall apart. The logic bit. That's why you're demonstrable lack of understanding of fallacious circular logic keeps resurfacing in these "try to see if the law is right by going to a court abiding by it!" scenarios.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 In cases where the supreme court is wrong, it doesn't invalidate the deductive reasoning that proves the law unconstitutional.

Legal decisions, legal thinking are not constrained by "deductive reasoning." The law is not a system of logic. Consequently, dogmatically and wishfully applying formal logic to it is an error in thinking. It's such an error that it would be very difficult to find anyone in the legal profession who would agree with you. You might take that as a signal about the validity of the point you're trying to beat home.

You may believe that law should respond to deductive reasoning, but the fact is it does not--a point you fail to understand or admit.

At any rate, I'm off to work, but I'll be back.


Regards
S.

[Kamehameha34]

Legal decisions, legal thinking are not constrained by "deductive reasoning."

So in your world, government is divorced from logic.

I guess that makes sense, with some of the policies you've been supporting.


So you repeat the fact that tax laws exist constitutionally, then leave.

You've done nothing to refute the fact that tax laws are still unconstitutional. Something tells me that it will either take an immense amount of explaining on my part for you to tell the difference, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

Your attitude is getting in the way of my explaining of the difference between constitutional existence and constitutionality. That's what it is now - my explaining the difference to you - so you treating it like a debate, when I've already answered each of your points is completely counterproductive.