Speaking of the FCC, how does the federal government even have the power to create such an entity?
Seriously, let's have some fun with the Constitution. Here's the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
What does it mean to you? Is the FCC a legal organization?
Speaking of the FCC, how does the federal government even have the power to create such an entity?
Seriously, let's have some fun with the Constitution. Here's the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
What does it mean to you? Is the FCC a legal organization?
I think the real question is, "Is the US Constitution a legal document?"
From where i sit even though every member of Congress and the President and the Vice President had sworn an oath to it they are ignoring it. It is defacto irrelevant because it has been discarded. The Government as it exists right now is legitimate only because it has the most might. It has no other reason to survive. Take away its guns and it would cease to be because those who still believe in it are quickly losing interest.
Speaking of the FCC, how does the federal government even have the power to create such an entity?
Seriously, let's have some fun with the Constitution. Here's the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
What does it mean to you? Is the FCC a legal organization?
I think the real question is, "Is the US Constitution a legal document?"
From where i sit even though every member of Congress and the President and the Vice President had sworn an oath to it they are ignoring it. It is defacto irrelevant because it has been discarded. The Government as it exists right now is legitimate only because it has the most might. It has no other reason to survive. Take away its guns and it would cease to be because those who still believe in it are quickly losing interest.
There is indeed much truth to your words. Nevertheless, we all cloak ourselves in the Constitution, and pay it homage when we advance our causes. No one running for office is going to say, "You know what, the Constitution is essentially dead, and we might as well admit that we don't follow it anymore. My policies will not be in compliance with it."
If we progressives are to take ourselves seriously when we complain that Bush is violating the Constitution, and that Congress is not living up to its responsibilities, I think that we owe it to ourselves to know what's in that document. Personally, I believe that it's a flawed, but fantastic document, and I think that unless we are willing to part ways with it openly, we ought to be able to say what its words mean to us.
I saw this yesterday and went to their site. Go there, sign the petition, donate and send the video to everybody you know. Finally there is a groundswell to stop the Bushco Propaganda Machine from destroying this country and we have a chance to do something. Just like Howard Zinn said, "The essential ingredients of these struggles for justice are human beings who, if only for a moment, if only while beset with fears, step our of line and do something, however small." You Can't Be Neutral On a Moving Train, Howard Zinn, 2002. Go there and make a difference, stopbigmedia.com
I agree, Karen, but at this point everyone knows these people no longer care about us, the Constitution or anything besides their own agenda. Their agenda is what the lobbyists tell them it is. The lobbyists' agenda is the Corporate Agenda. They call the shots. They own the air waves, the Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive Branch. Face it. It's over.
I agree, Karen, but at this point everyone knows these people no longer care about us, the Constitution or anything besides their own agenda. Their agenda is what the lobbyists tell them it is. The lobbyists' agenda is the Corporate Agenda. They call the shots. They own the air waves, the Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive Branch. Face it. It's over.
I'm not sure I ever expected such fatalism from you, xoites.
Personally, I'm not going quite that gently into that good night.
And I'll keep talking about the Constitution, and my other ideas, and strive to make my country better.
I agree, Karen, but at this point everyone knows these people no longer care about us, the Constitution or anything besides their own agenda. Their agenda is what the lobbyists tell them it is. The lobbyists' agenda is the Corporate Agenda. They call the shots. They own the air waves, the Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive Branch. Face it. It's over.
I'm not sure I ever expected such fatalism from you, xoites.
Personally, I'm not going quite that gently into that good night.
And I'll keep talking about the Constitution, and my other ideas, and strive to make my country better.
Just a momentary lapse of reason. I'll get over it. Hard not have mood swings these days.
According to Media Reform Information Center (http://www.corporations.org/media/), in 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.
In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.
According to Media Reform Information Center (http://www.corporations.org/media/), in 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.
In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.
How come every open thread has at least one Ron Paul moron to chime in?
because Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the ONLY candidates who represent REAL change. The others are bought by the political elite classes and financial elite classes. None of the others will end the war, none of the others will roll-back the fascist measures that Bush Administration and the enabling accomplices Democrats have enacted that circumvent and violate the Constitution.
And of those two, only Paul has managed the sort of traction and fund-raising to have a chance.
How come every open thread has at least one Ron Paul moron to chime in?
Not sure. I think it may have something to do with the name of the thread. Or it could have something to do with Ron Paul supporters reading it and commenting. We should organize a study group...
How come every open thread has at least one Ron Paul moron to chime in?
Hmm, perhaps I'll re-issue my Constitutional conversation starter in response to this.
Ron Paul, being the paleoconservative libertarian that he is, maintains that the government programs / entities that we as progressives hold sacred -- Social Security, Medicare, the Dept. of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency -- are unconstitutional. Progressives are quick to dismiss him as loony toons.
But, what, pray tell, are the arguments that we progressives have that Paul is wrong? That the federal government does have the power to do what it does (when we like what it's doing)?
How come every open thread has at least one Ron Paul moron to chime in?
Hmm, perhaps I'll re-issue my Constitutional conversation starter in response to this.
Ron Paul, being the paleoconservative libertarian that he is, maintains that the government programs / entities that we as progressives hold sacred -- Social Security, Medicare, the Dept. of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency -- are unconstitutional. Progressives are quick to dismiss him as loony toons.
But, what, pray tell, are the arguments that we progressives have that Paul is wrong? That the federal government does have the power to do what it does (when we like what it's doing)?
Refer again to the Tenth Amendment.
The Constitution also states:
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
Seems to me if the House and Senate passes a law and the President signs it into law then that is within the framework of the Constitution. If they create a Department of education then it is within the framework of the Constitution. I think the Tenth Amendment was a way to catch things that fell between the cracks.
How come every open thread has at least one Ron Paul moron to chime in?
Hmm, perhaps I'll re-issue my Constitutional conversation starter in response to this.
Ron Paul, being the paleoconservative libertarian that he is, maintains that the government programs / entities that we as progressives hold sacred -- Social Security, Medicare, the Dept. of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency -- are unconstitutional. Progressives are quick to dismiss him as loony toons.
But, what, pray tell, are the arguments that we progressives have that Paul is wrong? That the federal government does have the power to do what it does (when we like what it's doing)?
Refer again to the Tenth Amendment.
The Constitution also states:
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
Yes, that would be the procedure. How a bill becomes a law.
I'm not sure I see your point here, xoites. Mere passage by the proper procedure doesn't exactly make a law Constitutional, does it? I mean, if Congress passed a law tomorrow that said, crooksandliars.com shall no longer have free speech, and shall be shut down by force beginning Jan. 1, 2008 by the federal government, I'm pretty sure you'd immediately cry out for all of our First Amendment rights.
So, if the Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government for the states or the people, how are all the Paul bearers loony toons?
Of course and we would challenge it in court. To my knowledge the Department of Education has not been challenged in court or if it has the challenge was rebuked.
Seems to me if the House and Senate passes a law and the President signs it into law then that is within the framework of the Constitution.
So, the federal government has plenary power to do whatever it wants as long as it follows procedure? What's the point of explicitly listing out its powers in a Constitution, then? Aren't we supposed to have limited government? Can the Government violate our rights when it feels like it as long as it follows procedure?
If they create a Department of education then it is within the framework of the Constitution. I think the Tenth Amendment was a way to catch things that fell between the cracks.
I fail to see how the words mean that. You're essentially interpreting them to mean that the federal government has the power to do just about anything, and that the states may pick up where the fed leaves off.
Seems to me if the House and Senate passes a law and the President signs it into law then that is within the framework of the Constitution. If they create a Department of education then it is within the framework of the Constitution. I think the Tenth Amendment was a way to catch things that fell between the cracks.
Where in the Constitution does it say we are supposed to have limited government. The spirit of the Constitution is "for, by and of the people." If the people want public education this certainly follows the spirit.
Of course and we would challenge it in court. To my knowledge the Department of Education has not been challenged in court or if it has the challenge was rebuked.
But I'm asking on what basis you would defend it. I would think that you would be particularly eager to talk about how the Constitution is supposed to work, given your moniker and all. :)
I mean, seriously. The Paul bearers talk about being the true defenders of the written Constitution. How can we write them off as loons if we don't have a response to their Constitutional arguments.
It's really not enough to say that laws were enacted according to procedure, is it? I mean, we wouldn't accept that argument from a theocrat about something we considered an establishment of religion would we? And if the Roberts Court upholds what we consider an establishment, we'd still be railing about how the Constitution has been violated, wouldn't we?
So, I think it behooves us to have a cogent response to them. If we cloak ourselves in the legitimacy of the Constitution, and claim that our actions accord with it and that we hold it sacred, we ought to know what it says, and what it means.
It also follows the spirit of ending a "ruling class" by making education more widely available which is the exact opposite of repealing the Estate Tax and is counter to the spirit of our Founding Fathers' intentions.
Where in the Constitution does it say we are supposed to have limited government. The spirit of the Constitution is "for, by and of the people." If the people want public education this certainly follows the spirit.
I would never have expected to watch you, xoites, come out in favor of unfettered democracy. This is the same argument theocrats and authoritarians regularly use for their own policies. I'm stunned.
I must vehemently disagree with your assessment of the Constitution as one of unfettered democracy. I see the Constitution to have been written in the spirit of liberty.
Article I, Section 8 lists out the powers that were explicitly delegated to Congress. It explicitly says that Congress has the powers to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the specific list of powers. In the Tenth Amendment, it then adds that any powers that were not explicitly delegated to the federal government, are reserved for the states or the people.
To me, that's limited government. I would think that before the federal government can act, it has to find the power listed in the Constitution. Otherwise it is going beyond the scope of its powers.
I'm not saying that the powers aren't there to, say, create Social Security, for instance. But we need a much better argument than what you've presented.
Seems to me if the House and Senate passes a law and the President signs it into law then that is within the framework of the Constitution. If they create a Department of education then it is within the framework of the Constitution. I think the Tenth Amendment was a way to catch things that fell between the cracks.
Well, merely reiterating your words verbatim without actually defending them will hardly convince me.
It also follows the spirit of ending a "ruling class" by making education more widely available which is the exact opposite of repealing the Estate Tax and is counter to the spirit of our Founding Fathers' intentions.
Goodness, you've now latched onto the doctrine of Original Intent? Wow. :)
You will have to forgive me i am still saving up to go to Law School sometime around 2035 so i am just using common sense here. With some exceptions the Constitution is straightforward. This may well be one of those exceptions. It appears to me that this was a safety net meaning if there was something vital not stated in the Constitution and not covered by a law enacted by Congress then the states would have the option of passing laws to deal with it. I would point out that slavery is not in the Constitution but is now ilegal due Emancipation Proclamation which superceded the States' Laws governing slavery.
You will have to forgive me i am still saving up to go to Law School sometime around 2035 so i am just using common sense here. With some exceptions the Constitution is straightforward.
Forgive me if I'm beginning from an unfair vantage point in the debate. I can't undue my law degree. :)
But we rant here all the time about how Bush is violating the Constitution, and that how Ron Paul doesn't understand it. I do agree that the Constitution is pretty straightforward. But frankly, it doesn't seem like people have actually read it.
Your moniker is xoites defends the constitution. So, I would think you'd want to read it in full, and understand its words. :) I'm not trying to be insulting. I hope you'll forgive me if I'm sounding insulting.
This may well be one of those exceptions. It appears to me that this was a safety net meaning if there was something vital not stated in the Constitution and not covered by a law enacted by Congress then the states would have the option of passing laws to deal with it.
That's an interesting interpretation. Frankly, I don't agree with it, and I find it dangerous. Like you said, the Constitution is straightforward. It lists out, explicitly, the powers that were delegated to the federal government. Then it says that Congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out those powers. Then it says that if a power isn't listed there, it's the province of the states or the people.
I would point out that slavery is not in the Constitution but is now ilegal due Emancipation Proclamation which superceded the States' Laws governing slavery.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolishes slavery explicitly.
Forgive me if I’m beginning from an unfair vantage point in the debate. I can’t undue my law degree.
I am a high school drop out so you will have to forgive me as well.
Your moniker is xoites defends the constitution. So, I would think you’d want to read it in full, and understand its words. I’m not trying to be insulting. I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m sounding insulting.
I have read it but i have not studied it as you have.
I defend the basic principles. I disagree with private property and i doubt the Framers envisioned drive by shootings.
That’s an interesting interpretation. Frankly, I don’t agree with it, and I find it dangerous.
Please explain why. I am missing something.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolishes slavery explicitly.
Interesting debate. I'm not taking sides yet, but let me say that just because Congress passes a law, and a President signs it (or his/her veto is overridden) doesn't make that law Constitutional. It's the SC's job to vet those laws for Constitutionality. Certainly the SC hasn't been doing it's job.
"We the Corporate Media of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Monopoly, establish Bias, insure Domestic Subservience, provide for our common defense, promote our general punditry, and secure the Blessings of Presidents to ourselves and increase our Prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
How come every open thread has at least one Ron Paul moron to chime in?
Hmm, perhaps I'll re-issue my Constitutional conversation starter in response to this.
Ron Paul, being the paleoconservative libertarian that he is, maintains that the government programs / entities that we as progressives hold sacred -- Social Security, Medicare, the Dept. of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency -- are unconstitutional. Progressives are quick to dismiss him as loony toons.
But, what, pray tell, are the arguments that we progressives have that Paul is wrong? That the federal government does have the power to do what it does (when we like what it's doing)?
Refer again to the Tenth Amendment.
A clause from Article I, Section 8, empowering Congress to impose and collect taxes "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," gives the Federal government the legal authority to administer these programs.
I am not a lawyer, but your question is provocative and I did find this clause. As an aside, I believe that the people who want to stop the Federal Government from providing these programs would be the same ones who would do everything they could to stop any benefits programs from operating in their states. Kind of strange that these people who are true believers in intelligent design are social darwinists too.
Interesting debate. I'm not taking sides yet, but let me say that just because Congress passes a law, and a President signs it (or his/her veto is overridden) doesn't make that law Constitutional. It's the SC's job to vet those laws for Constitutionality. Certainly the SC hasn't been doing it's job.
Well, i wasn't exactly saying that Stan. It perplexes me that all these "extra-Constitutional" entities have been created over the years without being challenged in court. I am certain we had lawyers and the ACLU around when they were created.
Kind of strange that these people who are true believers in intelligent design are social darwinists too.
Anyone who calls himself a Social Darwinist and believes we should have prisons is a liar. All they want is to be protected from the poor and keep thier wealth.
How come every open thread has at least one Ron Paul moron to chime in?
Hmm, perhaps I'll re-issue my Constitutional conversation starter in response to this.
Ron Paul, being the paleoconservative libertarian that he is, maintains that the government programs / entities that we as progressives hold sacred -- Social Security, Medicare, the Dept. of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency -- are unconstitutional. Progressives are quick to dismiss him as loony toons.
But, what, pray tell, are the arguments that we progressives have that Paul is wrong? That the federal government does have the power to do what it does (when we like what it's doing)?
Refer again to the Tenth Amendment.
A clause from Article I, Section 8, empowering Congress to impose and collect taxes "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," gives the Federal government the legal authority to administer these programs.
I am not a lawyer, but your question is provocative and I did find this clause. As an aside, I believe that the people who want to stop the Federal Government from providing these programs would be the same ones who would do everything they could to stop any benefits programs from operating in their states. Kind of strange that these people who are true believers in intelligent design are social darwinists too.
seems to me that the catch-all phrase "General Welfare" is too overly broad. that could be just about anything. And to define current usage of welfare to the phraseology of Welfare back in 1787 is a bit disingenuous.
49 Truth B Told
seems to me that the catch-all phrase “General Welfare” is too overly broad. that could be just about anything. And to define current usage of welfare to the phraseology of Welfare back in 1787 is a bit disingenuous.
I guess we need to get back to the part of the Constitution that Karen quoted. In particular, the word "powers". Things like taxes don't by itself take away power. Laws against J walking don't take away your power, etc.
How about if I do it this way? (After all, I'm not defending the Paul bearer's positions.) I'll list out the explicit powers of Congress. Let's see if we can find the powers to do what progressives want the federal government can do. It'll arm us well when we argue with the Paul Bearers, and serve us better than merely calling them morons.
• To impeach executive officers (House of Representatives)
• To convict executive officers on trial for impeachment and remove him from office (Senate)
• to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises in order.........
• • • to pay the debts of the United States
• • • to provide for the common defense of the United States
• • • to provide for the general welfare of the United States
• To borrow money on the credit of the United States
• To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes
• To establish a uniform rule of naturalization
• To establish a uniform rules of bankruptcy
• To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of
weights and measures
• To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting
• To establish post offices and post roads
• To make copyright laws
• To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court
• To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against
the law of nations
• To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on
land and water
• To raise and support armies and a navy
• • • and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces
• To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress
insurrections and repel invasions
• To govern Washington DC
• To grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States (President)
• To make treaties (President with advice and consent of Senate)
• To appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States (President with advice and consent of Senate) (Congress can allow the president to appoint inferior officers by himself if it wants.)
• To declare the punishment of treason
• To prescribe the manner in which acts, records, and proceedings of states shall be proven
• To admit new states into the union
• To dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States
• To guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government
• To protect states against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
• To propose amendments to the Constitution
• To enforce against the states the prohibition of slavery
• To enforce against the states the prohibition of abridging rights and immunities
• To enforce against the states the prohibition of denying due process
• To enforce against the states the prohibition of denying equal protection of the laws
• To reduce the representation of any state that denies its 18-year-old and over citizens the right to vote
• To collect income taxes
• To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers
President Jimmy Carter Martin Luther King, Jr Ghandi Al Gore Bishop Desmond Tutu
All men of Peace
Sociopaths
George Bush Dick Cheney Condi Rice (token) Nancy Pelosi, Rockefeller Harry Reid
Rumsfeld Wolfowitz Lieberman......
WAR CRIMINALS
you should put Al Gore and Jimmy Carter in among the Sociopaths category. They belong to the same CFR and Trilateral Commissions that Bush, Cheney, Reid, Pelosi, Brokaw, Rumsfeld and so many more....
Hmm, perhaps I'll re-issue my Constitutional conversation starter in response to this.
Ron Paul, being the paleoconservative libertarian that he is, maintains that the government programs / entities that we as progressives hold sacred -- Social Security, Medicare, the Dept. of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency -- are unconstitutional. Progressives are quick to dismiss him as loony toons.
But, what, pray tell, are the arguments that we progressives have that Paul is wrong? That the federal government does have the power to do what it does (when we like what it's doing)?
Refer again to the Tenth Amendment.
A clause from Article I, Section 8, empowering Congress to impose and collect taxes "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," gives the Federal government the legal authority to administer these programs.
I am not a lawyer, but your question is provocative and I did find this clause. As an aside, I believe that the people who want to stop the Federal Government from providing these programs would be the same ones who would do everything they could to stop any benefits programs from operating in their states. Kind of strange that these people who are true believers in intelligent design are social darwinists too.
seems to me that the catch-all phrase "General Welfare" is too overly broad. that could be just about anything. And to define current usage of welfare to the phraseology of Welfare back in 1787 is a bit disingenuous.
That sounds like a strict constructionist's argument. I believe that the Constitution is such an awesome (no, I am not twelve) accomplishment because it can be applied to the issues of the day. Obviously our Chief Justice and other Justices feel differently. So I ask the question: Why hasn't there been a movement to add amendments to the Constitution to legalize Medicare and other social programs? I would also like to point out that the Supreme Court in years past has had an opportunity to declare these programs unconstitutional, but hasn't.
the Kahoneez found another little nugget about " Mr. 9 - 11 " Rudy Giuliani that hasn't hit the main stream YET . Thanks to great independent journalist such as Cliff Kincaid and the web site InfoWars .com .
Heres the short version , Texas Highway 121 will have a new landlord in town , CINTRA . What will they be doing , creating TOLL ROADS and collecting the green backs from victims of Privatization .
What law firm represented the Spanish Company CINTRA (Spanish Co.), drum roll .....Rudy Giuliani's . What Texas Governor helped get the deal passed , RICK PERRY .
What Texan just announced his Support for RUDY....RICK PERRY . What Texan politician is rumored to be possible VP for Rudy ....RICK PERRY .
"essentially won the contract to build the first ever private toll road in Texas." - INFOWARS.com
Rudy the war profiteer , sure knows how to make a buck and a lot of them and for those who know about the Bilderberg CABAL , Governor Rick Perry was invited to their meeting in Istanbul . Who else was there , same bankers that invested in Texas Highway 121 Toll Road
Go figure .
We may disagree on what "...to provide for the general welfare of the United States..." should include, but it is certainly Constitutional for the Congress to create a Department of Education if it deems having an educated populous is good for the country.
We may disagree on what "...to provide for the general welfare of the United States..." should include, but it is certainly Constitutional for the Congress to create a Department of Education if it deems having an educated populous is good for the country.
do you really think we have an educated populous?
do you?
really?
It is against the wishes of the elite to have an educated populous, otherwise they would know enough to figure out the massive scam being foisted on them.
watch this video from Carlin- HE FUCKING EXPLAINS IT.
It's been shown that socialism doesn't work. Well, does capitalism work? Folks, what we're seeing today is the decline of a nation. Perhaps it's time to find a middle ground. Perhaps European nations have already found it in the form of the so called welfare state. Not in any derogatory or negative sense. No. States like Norway and Sweden have found a way to provide their citizenry with social programs, free healthcare and still be capitalistic to an extent. I believe moderation is key. We've become a nation that lives and breaths money and we've become greedy and fat and slow. It's time for change. Enough with the dumbing own of America. Enough with big business controlling how you and I see the world around us. Enough with politicians selling themselves to the highest bidder.
Forgive me if I’m beginning from an unfair vantage point in the debate. I can’t undue my law degree.
I am a high school drop out so you will have to forgive me as well.
I'll tip my hat to ya, xoites, since you're certainly an intellect to be reckoned with. You prove yet again that one's level of education hardly indicates one's level of intelligence. I know many a fellow law grad around whom you would run rings in certain debates.
Your moniker is xoites defends the constitution. So, I would think you’d want to read it in full, and understand its words. I’m not trying to be insulting. I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m sounding insulting.
I have read it but i have not studied it as you have.
I defend the basic principles. I disagree with private property and i doubt the Framers envisioned drive by shootings.
:) I'm a textualist. I care about what the founders wrote, not what they intended or envisioned.
That’s an interesting interpretation. Frankly, I don’t agree with it, and I find it dangerous.
Please explain why. I am missing something.
When you get right down to it, there are two ways of interpreting the delegation of powers to any government. Either government gets to do what it wants unless the Constitution forbids it, or the government can only do what the Constitution says it can.
I think that the former way dangerously gives the government WAY too much power. It enables neo-cons to say, "Where does it explicitly say that the president can't send the army anywhere he damn well pleases, including into the streets of NYC to keep people at bay?"
The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolishes slavery explicitly.
No, i never said we did, but it is better than it would be without public education.
Actually what i said here was pretty lame. Here is what i really think.
During the Vietnam War the Universities in our country were a hotbed of debate about the direction of our country. As a result students took an active role in opposing the war, taking on social issues and questioning the government. A conscious decision was made to change all that and if you have not noticed the right is still freaked out by any college professor with an opinion that does not support the status quo. As a result our current President has trashed the Constitution and i have no idea if very many people are aware, concerned or even noticed. Bush's new "education" program is designed to funnel young minds into making a living as long as they don't think. Think and passing the new tests is iffy at best. The price of college even in state funded schools is too high for many, our country makes almost nothing anymore and many think we are on the verge of a major depression. But we do have video games!
49 Truth B Told
seems to me that the catch-all phrase “General Welfare” is too overly broad. that could be just about anything. And to define current usage of welfare to the phraseology of Welfare back in 1787 is a bit disingenuous.
Please elaborate. I am not convinced.
I agree that the term "general welfare" is broad, and requires a workable construction. How to properly construe it in today's times is an imperative challenge we must face.
What would truly be disingenuous would be to consider the general welfare clause dead letter merely because it's difficult to construe in a disciplined, principled manner. It has to mean something.
And progressives and libertarians (when both are being honest and true to the Constitution) can work together to fashion a good construction.
53 Karen
• • • to provide for the general welfare of the United States
I think that would cover it.
I largely agree, though I think that we have to remember to be precise about the power here. Congress has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, not simply to legislate anything it wants about it.
Moreover, what Congress does in this regard must be both NECESSARY AND PROPER for carrying out its power.
I think there is plenty of room for coming up with disciplined laws and programs within the structure of the Constitution, and it is exactly the kind of thing progressives and libertarians can work on together. (Not the orthodox Libertarian Party members, but various people working along a libertarian spectrum, and who might be disillusioned conservatives right now.)
By the way, when we do run into particularly sticky clauses in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence provides the perfect guide to Constitutional construction, in my opinion.
I'll give you some examples.
Unenumerated rights in the Ninth Amendment? How about say, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
Reserved powers of the states in the Tenth Amendment? How about the power to secure the equal rights of their respective populations!
High crimes and misdemeanors for which the president should be impeached? There are a host of them listed that King George committed that warranted bloody revolution!
General welfare? I would say that since everyone has an equal right to pursue happiness, and that government has the power to ensure that equal right, the general welfare is threatened when too many people are in such economic straits that they are pursuing survival instead of happiness (and correspondingly when too few have acquired such unequal wealth and power that they intrude upon the rights and liberties of others in the private sphere) the general welfare is threatened, and the fed has the power to step in and do something about it. :)
I guess we need to get back to the part of the Constitution that Karen quoted. In particular, the word "powers". Things like taxes don't by itself take away power. Laws against J walking don't take away your power, etc.
No, but they might infringe upon your rights. Government isn't allowed to do that either.
By the way, you can also go through the list of enumerated rights in the Constitution, the same way I went through the enumerated powers. But, beware if you do. You'll find the list alarmingly paltry.
Karen -
> I agree that the term “general welfare” is broad, and requires a workable construction. How to properly construe it in today’s times is an imperative challenge we must face. What would truly be disingenuous would be to consider the general welfare clause dead letter merely because it’s difficult to construe in a disciplined, principled manner. It has to mean something.
I wish you were running for President.
>> I guess we need to get back to the part of the Constitution that Karen quoted. In particular, the word “powers”. Things like taxes don’t by itself take away power. Laws against J walking don’t take away your power, etc.
>
> No, but they might infringe upon your rights. Government isn’t allowed to do that either.
Getting a little off-topic, are we? ;-)
Rights of "people"? Rights of "citizens"? (ie; of course I'm talking XIVth Amendment here IMHO)
Karen -
> I agree that the term “general welfare” is broad, and requires a workable construction. How to properly construe it in today’s times is an imperative challenge we must face. What would truly be disingenuous would be to consider the general welfare clause dead letter merely because it’s difficult to construe in a disciplined, principled manner. It has to mean something.
I wish you were running for President.
>> I guess we need to get back to the part of the Constitution that Karen quoted. In particular, the word “powers”. Things like taxes don’t by itself take away power. Laws against J walking don’t take away your power, etc.
>
> No, but they might infringe upon your rights. Government isn’t allowed to do that either.
Getting a little off-topic, are we? ;-)
Rights of "people"? Rights of "citizens"? (ie; of course I'm talking XIVth Amendment here IMHO)
Stan, if Karen were running for President there would just be one more candidate not allowed into the debates.
I find it amazing and saddening that in the US today you are regarded as some form of anti-American radical if you support the following.
The Constitution of the United States of America.
The Bill of Rights.
The concept of Habeas Corpus.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Geneva Conventions.
The Principles of International law.
These documents form the very foundation of our civilisation they are not radical; they are not based on political allegiance they are the statement of our fundamental ideology.
Yet they are being eroded day by day and anyone or any organisation that resists this manoeuvre by our government is somehow labelled unpatriotic and anti-American. How have we become so polarised as to mock the very foundation of our society and its goals for the future that we now mock those who try to uphold these statements of our fundamental values.
I am a believer in personal freedom, I also believe that once these documents are sufficiently castigated and abused our culture will fail. It is time for all Americans to stand up and be counted either you stand for the principles of the nation or you do not. There is no excuse in saying we are being attacked and letting fear destroy the freedoms we all hold so dear, its time to stop a runaway unitary executive and an enabling congress. This is not a Democratic Party or Republican Party wedge issue; this is a new centralisation of power and will be used by whomever we elect unless we make the message absolutely clear that we will not abide this abuse of power.
DC is broken and it is time to fix it, but it is not the time to give our rights away so cheaply. We need representatives from both sides of the political spectrum that support the rule of law to come forward and be counted [their voting records will be analysed]; the rest can go to hell.
I'm glad the "Paul Bearers" think to comment around here. I think Paul has somehow done something to energize a possible voting block and as much as I disagree with him on most issues, I commend him for that.
I'm glad the "Paul Bearers" think to comment around here. I think Paul has somehow done something to energize a possible voting block and as much as I disagree with him on most issues, I commend him for that.
I don't. They're a nattering chattering annoyance with nothing much to say, other than to preach to the rest of us about their cult of REPUBLICAN personality. It reminds me of $cientology.
Well miss kitty, you undoubtably see *MUCH* more of the comments around here than I do, so I can't dispute that POV. But let me tell you, the mainstream Republican'ts hate Paul *MUCH* more than you or I do, and they play these games of "pretenabee" (tm), pretending to be for or with someone they hate, with pseudos designed to give their hated a bad image.
Do I know that's happening with Paul? Well, yes actually. I debate with some Republican'ts and they give him the ol' vitriol like they give Democrats.
Well miss kitty, you undoubtably see *MUCH* more of the comments around here than I do, so I can't dispute that POV. But let me tell you, the mainstream Republican'ts hate Paul *MUCH* more than you or I do, and they play these games of "pretenabee" (tm), pretending to be for or with someone they hate, with pseudos designed to give their hated a bad image.
Do I know that's happening with Paul? Well, yes actually. I debate with some Republican'ts and they give him the ol' vitriol like they give Democrats.
I don't hate Dr Paul. I just am not so fond of his minging whingeing acolytes on teh internets boards.
Well miss kitty, you undoubtably see *MUCH* more of the comments around here than I do, so I can't dispute that POV. But let me tell you, the mainstream Republican'ts hate Paul *MUCH* more than you or I do, and they play these games of "pretenabee" (tm), pretending to be for or with someone they hate, with pseudos designed to give their hated a bad image.
Do I know that's happening with Paul? Well, yes actually. I debate with some Republican'ts and they give him the ol' vitriol like they give Democrats.
I will tell you why the mainstream "republicans" hate him so much. Because he is a bigger threat to them than even the democrats.
See, I view the Democrats and the Republicans as part of the same team. Sure there are a few rogue elements on both sides that display independence, but they are largely removed from major decisions. They both represent the ruling elite. They are merely the apparatus that that ruling class wields to convince the masses that they actually have a choice. The political and financial elites of this nation, or more precisely, the world financial elites.
Professor Carroll Quigley writes about this duopoly and this deception on the American people in his books Tragedy and Hope, and also the Anglo-American Establishment. Quigley also was Bill Clinton's mentor and sponsor for his Rhodes scholarship.
Paul disrupts the game because he is not an authorized player.
With Pelosi and Reid being the majority leaders, I certainly can't say that you're wrong about them being on the same team, Truth B. I mean, Reid's a Morman and everything!!!! We need to use primaries somehow to rid ourselves of these Corporates and get some real Liberals into leadership roles.
That's right! It's gonna be huge payday all over again for that all American Institution known as the Military Industrial Complex. Let's agitate so the earth can be drenched in blood and chaos while the fat cats get richer. Let's turn the entire Middle-East into a massive conflagration of possible nuclear proportions and while we're at it, let's start another cold war with Russia! Wheeeee!
IMHO, Senator Dodd would be an excellent President.
Either Edwards or Dodd. I liked Kucinich a lot too but don't have much faith in any of them.
What is needed is to rid our country of the plague known as lobbyists.
Without taking that necessary step it will be more and more of the same behind the scenes, corporate-dictated bullshit no matter who is elected. Until Americans can see this, fascism is alive and well and will continue to thrive. The election process seems like a long and drawn out facade because of this.
But anything is better than these jackbooted neo-conservatives.
SLAM DUNK, USA, I hope you die, I hope you kill yourselves, I hope you perisih from the Earth, I hope you kill yourselves, 200.000.000 legal home-USA-owened weaponry should do that, I think you're on TRACK!
Freya, I think the important thing is that we look for valid alternatives to what the MSM is preaching at us. In that I think we totally agree. BTW: Kucinich is my first choice as well.
SLAM DUNK, USA, I hope you die, I hope you kill yourselves, I hope you perisih from the Earth, I hope you kill yourselves, 200.000.000 legal home-USA-owened weaponry should do that, I think you're on TRACK!
SO GO KILL YOURSELVES!
YOU'RE IN-HUMAN SO TO SPEAK!
PLEASE, KILL YOURSELVES SO YOU DO NOT KILL US!!
C'mon! Don't be shy, tell us what you really think!
President Jimmy Carter Martin Luther King, Jr Ghandi Al Gore Bishop Desmond Tutu
All men of Peace
Sociopaths
George Bush Dick Cheney Condi Rice (token) Nancy Pelosi, Rockefeller Harry Reid
Rumsfeld Wolfowitz Lieberman......
WAR CRIMINALS
you should put Al Gore and Jimmy Carter in among the Sociopaths category. They belong to the same CFR and Trilateral Commissions that Bush, Cheney, Reid, Pelosi, Brokaw, Rumsfeld and so many more....
good cop-bad cop. Same squad.
God. I read a lot of Completely Effing Stupid around here, but once in a while, someone comes along and resets the bar waaaaay up there.
The right wing party in Canada was fractured and wiped out in government. Their leader has recently been in the news about various shenanigans.
In the 90's they had a shotgun marriage with wingnuts called "Reform". The conffered with the producers of the Hee Haw TV series and developed agendas and strategies.
They now run the country.
I'm glad the "Paul Bearers" think to comment around here. I think Paul has somehow done something to energize a possible voting block and as much as I disagree with him on most issues, I commend him for that.
I don't. They're a nattering chattering annoyance with nothing much to say, other than to preach to the rest of us about their cult of REPUBLICAN personality. It reminds me of $cientology.
and they follow apaleoconservative libertarian (that was brilliant, Karen)
The right wing party in Canada was fractured and wiped out in government. Their leader has recently been in the news about various shenanigans.
In the 90's they had a shotgun marriage with wingnuts called "Reform". The conffered with the producers of the Hee Haw TV series and developed agendas and strategies.
They now run the country.
this thread is clear evidence that they are still better off than americans.
its time to get rid of cars run on gas , the electric cars are our last hope of being home bound because the oil companys have a gun to our heads! the tecknowlegys allready here its just being surpressed by the filthy oil companys, solar pannels on your house or wind powered electricity would keep us going without being held captive by the robber barrons , we could have allready been well on our way to energy independence if the money pissed away in iraq and afganistan had been used for getting off of oil, hell you knew this before i typed it!
SLAM DUNK, USA, I hope you die, I hope you kill yourselves, I hope you perisih from the Earth, I hope you kill yourselves, 200.000.000 legal home-USA-owened weaponry should do that, I think you're on TRACK!
SO GO KILL YOURSELVES!
YOU'RE IN-HUMAN SO TO SPEAK!
PLEASE, KILL YOURSELVES SO YOU DO NOT KILL US!!
Oooooh, Ooooh, Ooooh, I was so scared when I read that. I sure hope I can sleep tonight.
But the truth of the matter is, there are millions of others around the world who feel the same way.
Well miss kitty, you undoubtably see *MUCH* more of the comments around here than I do, so I can't dispute that POV. But let me tell you, the mainstream Republican'ts hate Paul *MUCH* more than you or I do, and they play these games of "pretenabee" (tm), pretending to be for or with someone they hate, with pseudos designed to give their hated a bad image.
Do I know that's happening with Paul? Well, yes actually. I debate with some Republican'ts and they give him the ol' vitriol like they give Democrats.
I will tell you why the mainstream "republicans" hate him so much. Because he is a bigger threat to them than even the democrats.
See, I view the Democrats and the Republicans as part of the same team. Sure there are a few rogue elements on both sides that display independence, but they are largely removed from major decisions. They both represent the ruling elite. They are merely the apparatus that that ruling class wields to convince the masses that they actually have a choice. The political and financial elites of this nation, or more precisely, the world financial elites.
Professor Carroll Quigley writes about this duopoly and this deception on the American people in his books Tragedy and Hope, and also the Anglo-American Establishment. Quigley also was Bill Clinton's mentor and sponsor for his Rhodes scholarship.
Paul disrupts the game because he is not an authorized player.
Patronizing pablum from a Paul Supporter is not the best way to wake up in the morning.
It's been shown that socialism doesn't work. Well, does capitalism work? Folks, what we're seeing today is the decline of a nation. Perhaps it's time to find a middle ground. Perhaps European nations have already found it in the form of the so called welfare state. Not in any derogatory or negative sense. No. States like Norway and Sweden have found a way to provide their citizenry with social programs, free healthcare and still be capitalistic to an extent. I believe moderation is key. We've become a nation that lives and breaths money and we've become greedy and fat and slow. It's time for change. Enough with the dumbing own of America. Enough with big business controlling how you and I see the world around us. Enough with politicians selling themselves to the highest bidder.
-------------------------------
dear McDuff, yes.
there is a debate on here in part about the education system in this country. what i've been shouting for decades is that several european education models are there for us to learn from but what do we the xenophobes do? reinvent the wheel and reinvent, ad nauseum. the programs are there. they are proven successes. why don't we follow the good examples? nationalism. too much pride in self. lack of self examination. "heck, we u.s. americans are effin perfect, we have no need to ever look beyond our borders for ,,er ah whatever duud."
it's not just education but other social programs: health, workers rights, public transportation, elder care, public works (like levees and dams), child care and other frivolous things that do not allow for a big fat ass jaba the hut war machine.
SLAM DUNK, USA, I hope you die, I hope you kill yourselves, I hope you perisih from the Earth, I hope you kill yourselves, 200.000.000 legal home-USA-owened weaponry should do that, I think you’re on TRACK!
Sat, 12/15/2007 - 12:19 — Rush to War (not verified)
The elite are killing people and they get away with it. The church tells us killing is wrong. The elite are not good for our country, they hide in our govt agencies that are suppose to be protecting us. We are being inprisoned for protesting yet media will not cover events. The media is of the devil. God has given us the Declaration of Indepedance so there fore, he will protect us in the fight agaisnt our enemies.
Sat, 12/15/2007 - 13:49 — State AG Action (not verified)
Karen,
With you law background, do you have a position on, "What is to be done when the US government refuses to enforce the laws of war, prosecute or impeach?"
If the US government -- Congress, the courts, and prosecutors under the President -- refuse to take timely action, are there options outside the US government to enforce the law?
Do you have a view on State-level prosecutions of a sitting President; how does this incorproate the Atty duty to enforce the Constitution, even against domestic enemies?
It's all well and good to talk about legal theory: Let's get some of your thinking focused on some solutions: Prosecuting a sitting President, outside impeachment outside Congress; and imposing some solutions when the US government/Congress refuses to investigate impeachable offenses. If the US government will not enforce the law, time for the State AG's to enforce that law against the US government offiicals, and prosecute them -- even the President, VP, or Members of Congress.
What is your position on these solutions, above and beyond the ineresting discussion of what the Constitution means: Is this within your role as you see it; or do you view your role as not being one that discusses specific solutions to the apparent legal impasse before us?
I'm all for debate. But in my view this non-sense (in re FISA, Constitutional violations, Geneva abuse, Congressional inaction, Habeas destruction) need to be challenged. If the US government will not defend the Constitution, time for the State AG's to take the lead and assert the rule of law against the President, VP, and Members of Congress.
a thought on the gang rape of the hallibuton employee.
her treatment?
was that usual procedure? what may have happened to others before her? after?
someone needs to dig.
have all contractor employees' deaths been probed? were they shot? natural causes? auto accidents? murder?
even if autopsies were done there needs to be an independent inquiry and maybe exhumations.
i wonder that if this young lady had not just happened on a sympathetic guard, what would have become of her.
I've reminded others of this exchange before and I'll probably do it again and again, especially after the thread gets started tomorrow about Lieberman endorsing McCain.
In a memorable exchange on NBC's Meet the Press on April 25, 1999, at the height of NATO's 3 month long bombing of Yugoslavia, Pat Buchanan questioned Lieberman on the bombing of CIVILIAN targets in Serbia.
Lieberman had no answer other than to urge US escalation: "I hope the air campaign, even if it does not convince Milosevic to order his troops out of Kosovo, will so devastate his economy, which it's doing now, so ruin the lives of his people, that they will rise up and throw him out.
Terrorizing civilians, destroying their economy, ruining their lives so as to get them to change their government is a war crime. That’s the Lieberman approach to foreign policy.
Tonight on MSNBC they had an FBI agent trained in psychopathy analyzing Charles Manson. They showed many clips from a Manson interview. Try to watch it - Manson's facial expressions, phrasings, way of speaking is a dead ringer for the President in Thief.
Someone with great editing skills should put together a video showing the similarities.
Login or Register to post comments.
Saw this earlier today. It hits the nail on the head.
Can't wait until they start certifying blogers so this crap can spread to the internet.
That is a fantastic video.
Speaking of the FCC, how does the federal government even have the power to create such an entity?
Seriously, let's have some fun with the Constitution. Here's the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
What does it mean to you? Is the FCC a legal organization?
Reminds me a lot of the old Dead Kennedys albums inserts. We need so much more of this stuff.
killer video
Karen @ 3:
I think the real question is, "Is the US Constitution a legal document?"
From where i sit even though every member of Congress and the President and the Vice President had sworn an oath to it they are ignoring it. It is defacto irrelevant because it has been discarded. The Government as it exists right now is legitimate only because it has the most might. It has no other reason to survive. Take away its guns and it would cease to be because those who still believe in it are quickly losing interest.
xoites defends Constitution @ 6:
There is indeed much truth to your words. Nevertheless, we all cloak ourselves in the Constitution, and pay it homage when we advance our causes. No one running for office is going to say, "You know what, the Constitution is essentially dead, and we might as well admit that we don't follow it anymore. My policies will not be in compliance with it."
If we progressives are to take ourselves seriously when we complain that Bush is violating the Constitution, and that Congress is not living up to its responsibilities, I think that we owe it to ourselves to know what's in that document. Personally, I believe that it's a flawed, but fantastic document, and I think that unless we are willing to part ways with it openly, we ought to be able to say what its words mean to us.
kathy griffin talks about ann coulter on the today show
I saw this yesterday and went to their site. Go there, sign the petition, donate and send the video to everybody you know. Finally there is a groundswell to stop the Bushco Propaganda Machine from destroying this country and we have a chance to do something. Just like Howard Zinn said, "The essential ingredients of these struggles for justice are human beings who, if only for a moment, if only while beset with fears, step our of line and do something, however small." You Can't Be Neutral On a Moving Train, Howard Zinn, 2002. Go there and make a difference, stopbigmedia.com
I agree, Karen, but at this point everyone knows these people no longer care about us, the Constitution or anything besides their own agenda. Their agenda is what the lobbyists tell them it is. The lobbyists' agenda is the Corporate Agenda. They call the shots. They own the air waves, the Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive Branch. Face it. It's over.
*For the administration to consider making into an article*
Lt. Col. Andrew Horne (Ret.) Announces His Candidacy for Senate!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l8qfFOJZDbg
Ron Paul will likely be breaking 1 day fundraising efforts tomorrow with the Tea Party drive
http://www.teaparty07.com/
Just watched the video and noticed the "White men"=villain meme has struke again.
CD @ 13:
Really? I was noticing the lepracauns myself.
xoites defends Constitution @ 10:
I'm not sure I ever expected such fatalism from you, xoites.
Personally, I'm not going quite that gently into that good night.
And I'll keep talking about the Constitution, and my other ideas, and strive to make my country better.
Oh, i see, you think Ann Coulture is a man. LOL!
Karen @ 15:
Just a momentary lapse of reason. I'll get over it. Hard not have mood swings these days.
According to Media Reform Information Center (http://www.corporations.org/media/), in 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.
In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.
Pretty scary.
How come every open thread has at least one Ron Paul moron to chime in?
Ali @ 18:
Sorry, my editor won't let me comment on that.
suckerforpuns @ 19:
because Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the ONLY candidates who represent REAL change. The others are bought by the political elite classes and financial elite classes. None of the others will end the war, none of the others will roll-back the fascist measures that Bush Administration and the enabling accomplices Democrats have enacted that circumvent and violate the Constitution.
And of those two, only Paul has managed the sort of traction and fund-raising to have a chance.
suckerforpuns @ 19:
Not sure. I think it may have something to do with the name of the thread. Or it could have something to do with Ron Paul supporters reading it and commenting. We should organize a study group...
That vid was nicely done!
suckerforpuns @ 19:
Hmm, perhaps I'll re-issue my Constitutional conversation starter in response to this.
Ron Paul, being the paleoconservative libertarian that he is, maintains that the government programs / entities that we as progressives hold sacred -- Social Security, Medicare, the Dept. of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency -- are unconstitutional. Progressives are quick to dismiss him as loony toons.
But, what, pray tell, are the arguments that we progressives have that Paul is wrong? That the federal government does have the power to do what it does (when we like what it's doing)?
Refer again to the Tenth Amendment.
Nice vid, much props! Good background music, what is that song? Excellent presentation.
Karen @ 24:
The Constitution also states:
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
Seems to me if the House and Senate passes a law and the President signs it into law then that is within the framework of the Constitution. If they create a Department of education then it is within the framework of the Constitution. I think the Tenth Amendment was a way to catch things that fell between the cracks.
xoites defends Constitution @ 26:
Yes, that would be the procedure. How a bill becomes a law.
I'm not sure I see your point here, xoites. Mere passage by the proper procedure doesn't exactly make a law Constitutional, does it? I mean, if Congress passed a law tomorrow that said, crooksandliars.com shall no longer have free speech, and shall be shut down by force beginning Jan. 1, 2008 by the federal government, I'm pretty sure you'd immediately cry out for all of our First Amendment rights.
So, if the Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government for the states or the people, how are all the Paul bearers loony toons?
xoites defends Constitution @ 14:
You and those crazy eyes. :P
Of course and we would challenge it in court. To my knowledge the Department of Education has not been challenged in court or if it has the challenge was rebuked.
xoites defends Constitution @ 27:
So, the federal government has plenary power to do whatever it wants as long as it follows procedure? What's the point of explicitly listing out its powers in a Constitution, then? Aren't we supposed to have limited government? Can the Government violate our rights when it feels like it as long as it follows procedure?
I fail to see how the words mean that. You're essentially interpreting them to mean that the federal government has the power to do just about anything, and that the states may pick up where the fed leaves off.
I don't see how you can get that from the text.
And i will gladly restate my point:
Seems to me if the House and Senate passes a law and the President signs it into law then that is within the framework of the Constitution. If they create a Department of education then it is within the framework of the Constitution. I think the Tenth Amendment was a way to catch things that fell between the cracks.
Where in the Constitution does it say we are supposed to have limited government. The spirit of the Constitution is "for, by and of the people." If the people want public education this certainly follows the spirit.
xoites defends Constitution @ 30:
But I'm asking on what basis you would defend it. I would think that you would be particularly eager to talk about how the Constitution is supposed to work, given your moniker and all. :)
I mean, seriously. The Paul bearers talk about being the true defenders of the written Constitution. How can we write them off as loons if we don't have a response to their Constitutional arguments.
It's really not enough to say that laws were enacted according to procedure, is it? I mean, we wouldn't accept that argument from a theocrat about something we considered an establishment of religion would we? And if the Roberts Court upholds what we consider an establishment, we'd still be railing about how the Constitution has been violated, wouldn't we?
So, I think it behooves us to have a cogent response to them. If we cloak ourselves in the legitimacy of the Constitution, and claim that our actions accord with it and that we hold it sacred, we ought to know what it says, and what it means.
It also follows the spirit of ending a "ruling class" by making education more widely available which is the exact opposite of repealing the Estate Tax and is counter to the spirit of our Founding Fathers' intentions.
R.I.P. Julia Carson...........job well done.
xoites defends Constitution @ 33:
I would never have expected to watch you, xoites, come out in favor of unfettered democracy. This is the same argument theocrats and authoritarians regularly use for their own policies. I'm stunned.
I must vehemently disagree with your assessment of the Constitution as one of unfettered democracy. I see the Constitution to have been written in the spirit of liberty.
Article I, Section 8 lists out the powers that were explicitly delegated to Congress. It explicitly says that Congress has the powers to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the specific list of powers. In the Tenth Amendment, it then adds that any powers that were not explicitly delegated to the federal government, are reserved for the states or the people.
To me, that's limited government. I would think that before the federal government can act, it has to find the power listed in the Constitution. Otherwise it is going beyond the scope of its powers.
I'm not saying that the powers aren't there to, say, create Social Security, for instance. But we need a much better argument than what you've presented.
xoites defends Constitution @ 32:
Well, merely reiterating your words verbatim without actually defending them will hardly convince me.
xoites defends Constitution @ 35:
Goodness, you've now latched onto the doctrine of Original Intent? Wow. :)
You will have to forgive me i am still saving up to go to Law School sometime around 2035 so i am just using common sense here. With some exceptions the Constitution is straightforward. This may well be one of those exceptions. It appears to me that this was a safety net meaning if there was something vital not stated in the Constitution and not covered by a law enacted by Congress then the states would have the option of passing laws to deal with it. I would point out that slavery is not in the Constitution but is now ilegal due Emancipation Proclamation which superceded the States' Laws governing slavery.
xoites defends Constitution @ 39:
Forgive me if I'm beginning from an unfair vantage point in the debate. I can't undue my law degree. :)
But we rant here all the time about how Bush is violating the Constitution, and that how Ron Paul doesn't understand it. I do agree that the Constitution is pretty straightforward. But frankly, it doesn't seem like people have actually read it.
Your moniker is xoites defends the constitution. So, I would think you'd want to read it in full, and understand its words. :) I'm not trying to be insulting. I hope you'll forgive me if I'm sounding insulting.
That's an interesting interpretation. Frankly, I don't agree with it, and I find it dangerous. Like you said, the Constitution is straightforward. It lists out, explicitly, the powers that were delegated to the federal government. Then it says that Congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out those powers. Then it says that if a power isn't listed there, it's the province of the states or the people.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolishes slavery explicitly.
Perfect example of why " they " hate us. We , " hate ", us. Impeach the chimp.
The jerk who was in on crippling Nancy Kerrigan kicked the bucket. So at least there's some justice in this world.
I am a high school drop out so you will have to forgive me as well.
I have read it but i have not studied it as you have.
I defend the basic principles. I disagree with private property and i doubt the Framers envisioned drive by shootings.
Please explain why. I am missing something.
Thank you for correcting me on that.
Interesting debate. I'm not taking sides yet, but let me say that just because Congress passes a law, and a President signs it (or his/her veto is overridden) doesn't make that law Constitutional. It's the SC's job to vet those laws for Constitutionality. Certainly the SC hasn't been doing it's job.
"We the Corporate Media of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Monopoly, establish Bias, insure Domestic Subservience, provide for our common defense, promote our general punditry, and secure the Blessings of Presidents to ourselves and increase our Prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
you never know ;)
Karen @ 24:
A clause from Article I, Section 8, empowering Congress to impose and collect taxes "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," gives the Federal government the legal authority to administer these programs.
I am not a lawyer, but your question is provocative and I did find this clause. As an aside, I believe that the people who want to stop the Federal Government from providing these programs would be the same ones who would do everything they could to stop any benefits programs from operating in their states. Kind of strange that these people who are true believers in intelligent design are social darwinists too.
Stanley Rosenthal @ 44:
Well, i wasn't exactly saying that Stan. It perplexes me that all these "extra-Constitutional" entities have been created over the years without being challenged in court. I am certain we had lawyers and the ACLU around when they were created.
Anyone who calls himself a Social Darwinist and believes we should have prisons is a liar. All they want is to be protected from the poor and keep thier wealth.
oncall @ 46:
seems to me that the catch-all phrase "General Welfare" is too overly broad. that could be just about anything. And to define current usage of welfare to the phraseology of Welfare back in 1787 is a bit disingenuous.
Justice Truth Compassion Love
President Jimmy Carter Martin Luther King, Jr Ghandi Al Gore Bishop Desmond Tutu
All men of Peace
Sociopaths
George Bush Dick Cheney Condi Rice (token) Nancy Pelosi, Rockefeller Harry Reid
Rumsfeld Wolfowitz Lieberman......
WAR CRIMINALS
Please elaborate. I am not convinced.
I guess we need to get back to the part of the Constitution that Karen quoted. In particular, the word "powers". Things like taxes don't by itself take away power. Laws against J walking don't take away your power, etc.
How about if I do it this way? (After all, I'm not defending the Paul bearer's positions.) I'll list out the explicit powers of Congress. Let's see if we can find the powers to do what progressives want the federal government can do. It'll arm us well when we argue with the Paul Bearers, and serve us better than merely calling them morons.
• To impeach executive officers (House of Representatives)
• To convict executive officers on trial for impeachment and remove him from office (Senate)
• to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises in order.........
• • • to pay the debts of the United States
• • • to provide for the common defense of the United States
• • • to provide for the general welfare of the United States
• To borrow money on the credit of the United States
• To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes
• To establish a uniform rule of naturalization
• To establish a uniform rules of bankruptcy
• To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of
weights and measures
• To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting
• To establish post offices and post roads
• To make copyright laws
• To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court
• To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against
the law of nations
• To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on
land and water
• To raise and support armies and a navy
• • • and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces
• To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress
insurrections and repel invasions
• To govern Washington DC
• To grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States (President)
• To make treaties (President with advice and consent of Senate)
• To appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States (President with advice and consent of Senate) (Congress can allow the president to appoint inferior officers by himself if it wants.)
• To declare the punishment of treason
• To prescribe the manner in which acts, records, and proceedings of states shall be proven
• To admit new states into the union
• To dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States
• To guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government
• To protect states against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
• To propose amendments to the Constitution
• To enforce against the states the prohibition of slavery
• To enforce against the states the prohibition of abridging rights and immunities
• To enforce against the states the prohibition of denying due process
• To enforce against the states the prohibition of denying equal protection of the laws
• To reduce the representation of any state that denies its 18-year-old and over citizens the right to vote
• To collect income taxes
• To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fun, isn't it?
Honor @ 50:
you should put Al Gore and Jimmy Carter in among the Sociopaths category. They belong to the same CFR and Trilateral Commissions that Bush, Cheney, Reid, Pelosi, Brokaw, Rumsfeld and so many more....
good cop-bad cop. Same squad.
Shrub has created an activitist Justice Department.
Truth B Told @ 49:
That sounds like a strict constructionist's argument. I believe that the Constitution is such an awesome (no, I am not twelve) accomplishment because it can be applied to the issues of the day. Obviously our Chief Justice and other Justices feel differently. So I ask the question: Why hasn't there been a movement to add amendments to the Constitution to legalize Medicare and other social programs? I would also like to point out that the Supreme Court in years past has had an opportunity to declare these programs unconstitutional, but hasn't.
I think that would cover it.
the Kahoneez found another little nugget about " Mr. 9 - 11 " Rudy Giuliani that hasn't hit the main stream YET . Thanks to great independent journalist such as Cliff Kincaid and the web site InfoWars .com .
Heres the short version , Texas Highway 121 will have a new landlord in town , CINTRA . What will they be doing , creating TOLL ROADS and collecting the green backs from victims of Privatization .
What law firm represented the Spanish Company CINTRA (Spanish Co.), drum roll .....Rudy Giuliani's . What Texas Governor helped get the deal passed , RICK PERRY .
What Texan just announced his Support for RUDY....RICK PERRY . What Texan politician is rumored to be possible VP for Rudy ....RICK PERRY .
"essentially won the contract to build the first ever private toll road in Texas." - INFOWARS.com
Rudy the war profiteer , sure knows how to make a buck and a lot of them and for those who know about the Bilderberg CABAL , Governor Rick Perry was invited to their meeting in Istanbul . Who else was there , same bankers that invested in Texas Highway 121 Toll Road
Go figure .
Go Back to Sleep, America. Your Government is in Control. - Bill Hicks in 1992
We may disagree on what "...to provide for the general welfare of the United States..." should include, but it is certainly Constitutional for the Congress to create a Department of Education if it deems having an educated populous is good for the country.
StirFry @ 58:
It is incredibly difficult to sleep while discusing the Constitution. George Bush notwithstanding.
> Paul Bearers
ROFLMAO!!!!
xoites defends Constitution @ 60:
do you really think we have an educated populous?
do you?
really?
It is against the wishes of the elite to have an educated populous, otherwise they would know enough to figure out the massive scam being foisted on them.
watch this video from Carlin- HE FUCKING EXPLAINS IT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXktfUrvrBo
Article I section 8 and the last bullet point do it for me. ;-) I think one can make a cogent argument with those two.
If you really want to wonk out on this topic read this: http://www.ifw-kiel.de/VRCent/DEGIT/paper/degit_11/C011_011.pdf
Stanley Rosenthal @ 62:
Thanks, Stan! I was hoping someone would finally notice my little pun. :)
Awesome comments, folks! I love these kinds of debates. :) I'll try to answer some of the questions posed directly to me.
No, i never said we did, but it is better than it would be without public education.
The Fed finally tries to add some common sense to buying and selling houses. Stocks continue to fall.
It's been shown that socialism doesn't work. Well, does capitalism work? Folks, what we're seeing today is the decline of a nation. Perhaps it's time to find a middle ground. Perhaps European nations have already found it in the form of the so called welfare state. Not in any derogatory or negative sense. No. States like Norway and Sweden have found a way to provide their citizenry with social programs, free healthcare and still be capitalistic to an extent. I believe moderation is key. We've become a nation that lives and breaths money and we've become greedy and fat and slow. It's time for change. Enough with the dumbing own of America. Enough with big business controlling how you and I see the world around us. Enough with politicians selling themselves to the highest bidder.
xoites defends Constitution @ 67:
Really? what is your basis for making that comment?
I find it ironic that a high school drop out is determining what is better education.
xoites defends Constitution @ 43:
I'll tip my hat to ya, xoites, since you're certainly an intellect to be reckoned with. You prove yet again that one's level of education hardly indicates one's level of intelligence. I know many a fellow law grad around whom you would run rings in certain debates.
:) I'm a textualist. I care about what the founders wrote, not what they intended or envisioned.
When you get right down to it, there are two ways of interpreting the delegation of powers to any government. Either government gets to do what it wants unless the Constitution forbids it, or the government can only do what the Constitution says it can.
I think that the former way dangerously gives the government WAY too much power. It enables neo-cons to say, "Where does it explicitly say that the president can't send the army anywhere he damn well pleases, including into the streets of NYC to keep people at bay?"
No problem. ;)
xoites defends Constitution @ 67:
Actually what i said here was pretty lame. Here is what i really think.
During the Vietnam War the Universities in our country were a hotbed of debate about the direction of our country. As a result students took an active role in opposing the war, taking on social issues and questioning the government. A conscious decision was made to change all that and if you have not noticed the right is still freaked out by any college professor with an opinion that does not support the status quo. As a result our current President has trashed the Constitution and i have no idea if very many people are aware, concerned or even noticed. Bush's new "education" program is designed to funnel young minds into making a living as long as they don't think. Think and passing the new tests is iffy at best. The price of college even in state funded schools is too high for many, our country makes almost nothing anymore and many think we are on the verge of a major depression. But we do have video games!
xoites defends Constitution @ 51:
I agree that the term "general welfare" is broad, and requires a workable construction. How to properly construe it in today's times is an imperative challenge we must face.
What would truly be disingenuous would be to consider the general welfare clause dead letter merely because it's difficult to construe in a disciplined, principled manner. It has to mean something.
And progressives and libertarians (when both are being honest and true to the Constitution) can work together to fashion a good construction.
xoites defends Constitution @ 57:
I largely agree, though I think that we have to remember to be precise about the power here. Congress has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, not simply to legislate anything it wants about it.
Moreover, what Congress does in this regard must be both NECESSARY AND PROPER for carrying out its power.
I think there is plenty of room for coming up with disciplined laws and programs within the structure of the Constitution, and it is exactly the kind of thing progressives and libertarians can work on together. (Not the orthodox Libertarian Party members, but various people working along a libertarian spectrum, and who might be disillusioned conservatives right now.)
By the way, when we do run into particularly sticky clauses in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence provides the perfect guide to Constitutional construction, in my opinion.
I'll give you some examples.
Unenumerated rights in the Ninth Amendment? How about say, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
Reserved powers of the states in the Tenth Amendment? How about the power to secure the equal rights of their respective populations!
High crimes and misdemeanors for which the president should be impeached? There are a host of them listed that King George committed that warranted bloody revolution!
General welfare? I would say that since everyone has an equal right to pursue happiness, and that government has the power to ensure that equal right, the general welfare is threatened when too many people are in such economic straits that they are pursuing survival instead of happiness (and correspondingly when too few have acquired such unequal wealth and power that they intrude upon the rights and liberties of others in the private sphere) the general welfare is threatened, and the fed has the power to step in and do something about it. :)
Stanley Rosenthal @ 52:
No, but they might infringe upon your rights. Government isn't allowed to do that either.
By the way, you can also go through the list of enumerated rights in the Constitution, the same way I went through the enumerated powers. But, beware if you do. You'll find the list alarmingly paltry.
Karen -
> Thanks, Stan! I was hoping someone would finally notice my little pun. :-)
Not only do I love you 4 your knowledge of the Constitution, I love you for your humour. :-)
Arrighty, folks! Thanks for the conversation!
Gotta tend to more pressing domestic matters with my partner now!
;)
Truth B Told @ 70:
I would find it ironic to hear you made it through college.
Thanks Karen, have a good night. :)
Karen -
> I agree that the term “general welfare” is broad, and requires a workable construction. How to properly construe it in today’s times is an imperative challenge we must face. What would truly be disingenuous would be to consider the general welfare clause dead letter merely because it’s difficult to construe in a disciplined, principled manner. It has to mean something.
I wish you were running for President.
>> I guess we need to get back to the part of the Constitution that Karen quoted. In particular, the word “powers”. Things like taxes don’t by itself take away power. Laws against J walking don’t take away your power, etc.
>
> No, but they might infringe upon your rights. Government isn’t allowed to do that either.
Getting a little off-topic, are we? ;-)
Rights of "people"? Rights of "citizens"? (ie; of course I'm talking XIVth Amendment here IMHO)
Ok, who wants to play Parcheesi?
> Gotta tend to more pressing domestic matters with my partner now! ;-)
I wasn't talking about "Ed" Powers. ;-)
GN Karen!
Stanley Rosenthal @ 80:
Stan, if Karen were running for President there would just be one more candidate not allowed into the debates.
xoites, how about a little game of thermo-nuclear war? ;-)
xoites -
> ... if Karen were running for President there would just be one more candidate not allowed into the debates.
No shit broe.
Here is a list of all the people running for the White House.
Or maybe not. Here is another list updated to today.
What's that tune, something about another KISS on my list ...
And then there's this No Doubt tune, oh yeah, X GrrrlFriend -
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ff_GbnpDzwQ
By the looks of <a href="
">this list we should know by February 6 who the nominees will be.
Try again
By the looks of this list we should know by february 6 who the nominees are.
Damn, I hate to say it but it's good that Texas is out of it. ;-)
Stanley Rosenthal @ 91:
Stan, you live in Texas.
I am but one vote, in a touchscreen voting machine my friend.
I find it amazing and saddening that in the US today you are regarded as some form of anti-American radical if you support the following.
The Constitution of the United States of America.
The Bill of Rights.
The concept of Habeas Corpus.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Geneva Conventions.
The Principles of International law.
These documents form the very foundation of our civilisation they are not radical; they are not based on political allegiance they are the statement of our fundamental ideology.
Yet they are being eroded day by day and anyone or any organisation that resists this manoeuvre by our government is somehow labelled unpatriotic and anti-American. How have we become so polarised as to mock the very foundation of our society and its goals for the future that we now mock those who try to uphold these statements of our fundamental values.
I am a believer in personal freedom, I also believe that once these documents are sufficiently castigated and abused our culture will fail. It is time for all Americans to stand up and be counted either you stand for the principles of the nation or you do not. There is no excuse in saying we are being attacked and letting fear destroy the freedoms we all hold so dear, its time to stop a runaway unitary executive and an enabling congress. This is not a Democratic Party or Republican Party wedge issue; this is a new centralisation of power and will be used by whomever we elect unless we make the message absolutely clear that we will not abide this abuse of power.
DC is broken and it is time to fix it, but it is not the time to give our rights away so cheaply. We need representatives from both sides of the political spectrum that support the rule of law to come forward and be counted [their voting records will be analysed]; the rest can go to hell.
M
Ron Paul has raised almost $1 million in three hours for the Tea Party drive.
I'm glad the "Paul Bearers" think to comment around here. I think Paul has somehow done something to energize a possible voting block and as much as I disagree with him on most issues, I commend him for that.
Stanley Rosenthal @ 96:
I don't. They're a nattering chattering annoyance with nothing much to say, other than to preach to the rest of us about their cult of REPUBLICAN personality. It reminds me of $cientology.
Stanley Rosenthal @ 84:
The only way to win is not to play.
Well miss kitty, you undoubtably see *MUCH* more of the comments around here than I do, so I can't dispute that POV. But let me tell you, the mainstream Republican'ts hate Paul *MUCH* more than you or I do, and they play these games of "pretenabee" (tm), pretending to be for or with someone they hate, with pseudos designed to give their hated a bad image.
Do I know that's happening with Paul? Well, yes actually. I debate with some Republican'ts and they give him the ol' vitriol like they give Democrats.
Wise words, navyswan.
Stanley Rosenthal @ 99:
I don't hate Dr Paul. I just am not so fond of his minging whingeing acolytes on teh internets boards.
miss kitty -
> I don’t hate Dr Paul.
See? Neither do I (as much as I oppose him.)
Two Gore Vidal essays which some may find interesting:
The Second American Revolution
and
The State of the Union, Revisited (1980)
Unfortunately, they don't appear to be available online, so you'll have to look for them in book form.
Stanley Rosenthal @ 99:
I will tell you why the mainstream "republicans" hate him so much. Because he is a bigger threat to them than even the democrats.
See, I view the Democrats and the Republicans as part of the same team. Sure there are a few rogue elements on both sides that display independence, but they are largely removed from major decisions. They both represent the ruling elite. They are merely the apparatus that that ruling class wields to convince the masses that they actually have a choice. The political and financial elites of this nation, or more precisely, the world financial elites.
Professor Carroll Quigley writes about this duopoly and this deception on the American people in his books Tragedy and Hope, and also the Anglo-American Establishment. Quigley also was Bill Clinton's mentor and sponsor for his Rhodes scholarship.
Paul disrupts the game because he is not an authorized player.
With Pelosi and Reid being the majority leaders, I certainly can't say that you're wrong about them being on the same team, Truth B. I mean, Reid's a Morman and everything!!!! We need to use primaries somehow to rid ourselves of these Corporates and get some real Liberals into leadership roles.
That's right! It's gonna be huge payday all over again for that all American Institution known as the Military Industrial Complex. Let's agitate so the earth can be drenched in blood and chaos while the fat cats get richer. Let's turn the entire Middle-East into a massive conflagration of possible nuclear proportions and while we're at it, let's start another cold war with Russia! Wheeeee!
Israel: US Report on Iran May Spark War
U.S. boosts presence along Iranian border
Russia Warns of US Missile Shield Retaliation
Russia plans no forces build-up after CFE freeze
Russian
general: Pentagon seeking confrontation
IMHO, Senator Dodd would be an excellent President.
Stanley Rosenthal @ 107:
Either Edwards or Dodd. I liked Kucinich a lot too but don't have much faith in any of them.
What is needed is to rid our country of the plague known as lobbyists.
Without taking that necessary step it will be more and more of the same behind the scenes, corporate-dictated bullshit no matter who is elected. Until Americans can see this, fascism is alive and well and will continue to thrive. The election process seems like a long and drawn out facade because of this.
But anything is better than these jackbooted neo-conservatives.
GNA.
SLAM DUNK, USA, I hope you die, I hope you kill yourselves, I hope you perisih from the Earth, I hope you kill yourselves, 200.000.000 legal home-USA-owened weaponry should do that, I think you're on TRACK!
SO GO KILL YOURSELVES!
YOU'RE IN-HUMAN SO TO SPEAK!
PLEASE, KILL YOURSELVES SO YOU DO NOT KILL US!!
Freya, I think the important thing is that we look for valid alternatives to what the MSM is preaching at us. In that I think we totally agree. BTW: Kucinich is my first choice as well.
ISLAMMIST> @ 109:
C'mon! Don't be shy, tell us what you really think!
Truth B Told @ 54:
God. I read a lot of Completely Effing Stupid around here, but once in a while, someone comes along and resets the bar waaaaay up there.
The right wing party in Canada was fractured and wiped out in government. Their leader has recently been in the news about various shenanigans.
In the 90's they had a shotgun marriage with wingnuts called "Reform". The conffered with the producers of the Hee Haw TV series and developed agendas and strategies.
They now run the country.
wow that must have been a genuine islamic radical. not a fake one. a real one.
geez.
When The Wells Run Dry
How ironic the music isn't credited on a site about the writer's strike.
Anyway, "No Heaven" by Champion. Available at iTunes.
miss_kitty @ 97:
and they follow a paleoconservative libertarian (that was brilliant, Karen)
charles @ 113:
this thread is clear evidence that they are still better off than americans.
actor212 @ 115:
its time to get rid of cars run on gas , the electric cars are our last hope of being home bound because the oil companys have a gun to our heads! the tecknowlegys allready here its just being surpressed by the filthy oil companys, solar pannels on your house or wind powered electricity would keep us going without being held captive by the robber barrons , we could have allready been well on our way to energy independence if the money pissed away in iraq and afganistan had been used for getting off of oil, hell you knew this before i typed it!
ISLAMMIST> @ 109:
Oooooh, Ooooh, Ooooh, I was so scared when I read that. I sure hope I can sleep tonight.
But the truth of the matter is, there are millions of others around the world who feel the same way.
Truth B Told @ 104:
Patronizing pablum from a Paul Supporter is not the best way to wake up in the morning.
www.liveleak.com/view?i=b43_1197808121
part one of british documentary in 8 parts. afganistan with the royal british marines.
Oh man, after the vid ends you need to choose the 2004 interview of Jon Stewart on O'Really, OMG, what a howl!
McDuff @ 69:
-------------------------------
dear McDuff, yes.
there is a debate on here in part about the education system in this country. what i've been shouting for decades is that several european education models are there for us to learn from but what do we the xenophobes do? reinvent the wheel and reinvent, ad nauseum. the programs are there. they are proven successes. why don't we follow the good examples? nationalism. too much pride in self. lack of self examination. "heck, we u.s. americans are effin perfect, we have no need to ever look beyond our borders for ,,er ah whatever duud."
it's not just education but other social programs: health, workers rights, public transportation, elder care, public works (like levees and dams), child care and other frivolous things that do not allow for a big fat ass jaba the hut war machine.
109 ISLAMMIST@109
SLAM DUNK, USA, I hope you die, I hope you kill yourselves, I hope you perisih from the Earth, I hope you kill yourselves, 200.000.000 legal home-USA-owened weaponry should do that, I think you’re on TRACK!
SO GO KILL YOURSELVES!
YOU’RE IN-HUMAN SO TO SPEAK!
PLEASE, KILL YOURSELVES SO YOU DO NOT KILL US!!
____________________________________________________
Oh! If I kill myself, will there be 70 naked virgins waiting for me in heaven?
Be right back! Errr...That's a deal!
The elite are killing people and they get away with it. The church tells us killing is wrong. The elite are not good for our country, they hide in our govt agencies that are suppose to be protecting us. We are being inprisoned for protesting yet media will not cover events. The media is of the devil. God has given us the Declaration of Indepedance so there fore, he will protect us in the fight agaisnt our enemies.
Give $100 to Kucinich today: https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=aDlDFFT...
Karen,
With you law background, do you have a position on, "What is to be done when the US government refuses to enforce the laws of war, prosecute or impeach?"
If the US government -- Congress, the courts, and prosecutors under the President -- refuse to take timely action, are there options outside the US government to enforce the law?
Do you have a view on State-level prosecutions of a sitting President; how does this incorproate the Atty duty to enforce the Constitution, even against domestic enemies?
It's all well and good to talk about legal theory: Let's get some of your thinking focused on some solutions: Prosecuting a sitting President, outside impeachment outside Congress; and imposing some solutions when the US government/Congress refuses to investigate impeachable offenses. If the US government will not enforce the law, time for the State AG's to enforce that law against the US government offiicals, and prosecute them -- even the President, VP, or Members of Congress.
What is your position on these solutions, above and beyond the ineresting discussion of what the Constitution means: Is this within your role as you see it; or do you view your role as not being one that discusses specific solutions to the apparent legal impasse before us?
I'm all for debate. But in my view this non-sense (in re FISA, Constitutional violations, Geneva abuse, Congressional inaction, Habeas destruction) need to be challenged. If the US government will not defend the Constitution, time for the State AG's to take the lead and assert the rule of law against the President, VP, and Members of Congress.
a thought on the gang rape of the hallibuton employee.
her treatment?
was that usual procedure? what may have happened to others before her? after?
someone needs to dig.
have all contractor employees' deaths been probed? were they shot? natural causes? auto accidents? murder?
even if autopsies were done there needs to be an independent inquiry and maybe exhumations.
i wonder that if this young lady had not just happened on a sympathetic guard, what would have become of her.
I've reminded others of this exchange before and I'll probably do it again and again, especially after the thread gets started tomorrow about Lieberman endorsing McCain.
In a memorable exchange on NBC's Meet the Press on April 25, 1999, at the height of NATO's 3 month long bombing of Yugoslavia, Pat Buchanan questioned Lieberman on the bombing of CIVILIAN targets in Serbia.
Lieberman had no answer other than to urge US escalation: "I hope the air campaign, even if it does not convince Milosevic to order his troops out of Kosovo, will so devastate his economy, which it's doing now, so ruin the lives of his people, that they will rise up and throw him out.
Terrorizing civilians, destroying their economy, ruining their lives so as to get them to change their government is a war crime. That’s the Lieberman approach to foreign policy.
Tonight on MSNBC they had an FBI agent trained in psychopathy analyzing Charles Manson. They showed many clips from a Manson interview. Try to watch it - Manson's facial expressions, phrasings, way of speaking is a dead ringer for the President in Thief.
Someone with great editing skills should put together a video showing the similarities.
Login or Register to post comments.