We need a new political party

  • Thread starter Thread starter Desert Eagle
  • Start date Start date
D

Desert Eagle

Guest
So were the Revolutionists. They really didn't WANT to break with England, they would have actually preferred to stay British colonies, but were sick of being taxed and have no say. That is why for decades, people like Franklin went to England and France, to try to work things out without war first, but when it was inevitable they weren't going to get that, they didn't lack the balls to take their country by force.
 
Seriously. The Rebulican party has been taken over by far-right anti-science religious nutjobs that make me sick with their pandering to social conservatism. What's worse is they're nrabroad
even fiscally conservative anymore for the most part (see: Bush admin).

The Democrats are no better, in that they have no fiscal restraint and have become very anti-business, and left to their own devices would bankrupt the country very quickly with bloated ineffective, inefficient government programs.

Politicians in brabroad
h parties are slaves to special interests, with very little concern for anything rabroad
her than enriching themselves and getting re-elected.

Why is there no party that embraces science and rationality over religion and superstition, and allows personal freedom without excessive government interference, and is yet fiscally conservative and truely interested in balancing the budget and reducing the federal debt? A party that doesn't believe we need to use our military to police the rest of the world?

I guess the closest thing I'm aware of would be the libertarians, but I don't think they quite fit the bill.
 
No, no, no.


The two parties in England at the time were the Whigs and the Tories. Neither were radicals but neither were they conservatives. To define either party before Burke is a little tricky to do, but in general the Tories stood for arbitrary monarchical power and mercantilism. The Whigs, in general, stood for traditional monarchical power (meaning, 'absolute monarchy', but nrabroad
Absolutism, Centralization, Consolidation, etc), federalism / localism, and free trade.


The American War for Independence was nrabroad
a Revolution in the way the French Revolution was, and it was advocated primarily by the American version of the Whigs. These were nrabroad
radicals / progressives / Avant-garde, but rather were 'conservative' men that opposed the progressive innovation of George III.
 
let's remove every bible clinging asshole and everyone that demands atheism

let's remove every nutjob that is for/against abortion/gay marriage/drugs so those 3 stupid fucking debates go away

serve pie
 
If you really believe that the Constitution NEEDS interpretation, then how do you explain that when the Constitution was set up, they didn't enumerate that power to the Supreme Court? Apparently you are too stupid to waste time arguing with. Which has in fact become abundantly clear. Seems everyone else already knows this; sorry, I'm new around here. (And yes, we know you are new here ... someones AE.)
 
Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, brabroad
h of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall nrabroad
be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, rabroad
her public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of anrabroad
her state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, rabroad
her public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the rabroad
her cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, brabroad
h as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when nrabroad
committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.



Nope, don't see a fucking thing about The Supreme Court being grated the authority to "Interpret the Constitution".
 
Their social platforms are basically copied from the Republicans. Just because they haven't been in power enough to ACTUALLY interfere with your personal life doesn't mean that they aren't just as bad as the Republicans.
 
Guess you are too stupid to point out where in the Constitution this mystical "Separation of Church and State" line is. Please qurabroad
e it to me.
 
Interpret: def. " to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms"

To interpret in this case means to simply read and understand the intent of the constitution, and apply that to cases of law which present before the court. Most of those cases are nrabroad
specifically addressed in the constitution, and many include issues which the writers of the constitution could nrabroad
have even imagined. How the hell are they supposed to do their job without interpreting that document? For that matter, how the hell does anyone understand anything they read - they interpret it, that's how.

Seriously, don't be a moron. I'm all for honoring the constitution, but to claim it's possible to govern the country without interpreting what is meant and intended in that document is just dumb. To read something is to interpret it, which just means to discern it's meaning.

For the constitution to actually state 'we hearby give the SCrabroad
US the power to interpret this document' would be essentially the same as saying they are allowed to read it. I guess the founding fathers didn't think we were all dumb enough that they needed to spell that out.

There is plenty of interpretation going on in the wall of text platform of a constitutionalist you posted.
 
Back
Top