Leftist & RINOs vs The Tea Party

Rose said:
If not to create different interpretations, then why choose state over federal courts?
Click to expand...

Because there’s no recourse when federal courts ignore and violate the National ,Constitution, it’s next to impossible to throw the bastards on the courts out, but state courts still have to be in lock step with the National Constitution and the recourse when they’re not is the federal court. Akin to all of that is the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority to do most of what they do today, but amendment 10 of the national Constitution guarantees the authority to the States to do whatever they want as long as they don’t violate the National ,Constitution or the respective State’s Constitution.
 
philly rabbit said:
Leave the social issues to the different states. And when I say different states I don't mean your federal judges but the numerical majority of the people within them.
Click to expand...

That's not what social conservatives want. Look at what your politicians and jurist have done on marijuana. They also tried to ban marriage equality federally.

But, I don't consider civil rights a States' rights issue.
 
Classic Liberal said:
Well if that’s true, why are the neo-con RINOs, so-called “social conservatives" so hell bent on destroying the Tea Party? All you need to do is watch and listen to the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Carl Rove, Peter King, John Boehner, Chris Christie and the other RINOs who consistently bad mouth the Tea Party members in Congress and even the Tea Party in general?

Maybe they haven’t taken over the whole of it yet? Maybe they just want to purge the libertarians and others who oppose “business as usual” in Washington with balls and gusto, huh?
Click to expand...

Which one of those guys is a social conservative?

The only libertarians who are identifying as tea party are the stupid ones.
 
Last edited:
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
That's not what social conservatives want. Look at what your politicians and jurist have done on marijuana. They also tried to ban marriage equality federally.

But, I don't consider civil rights a States' rights issue.
Click to expand...

For the sake of discussion from a Libertarian perspective why not?
 
Classic Liberal said:
Because there’s no recourse when federal courts ignore and violate the National ,Constitution, it’s next to impossible to throw the bastards on the courts out, but state courts still have to be in lock step with the National Constitution and the recourse when they’re not is the federal court. Akin to all of that is the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority to do most of what they do today, but amendment 10 of the national Constitution guarantees the authority to the States to do whatever they want as long as they don’t violate the National ,Constitution or the respective State’s Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is recourse for the federal courts. You can amend the Constitution. Also if lower courts have trouble applying the precedents the Supreme Court will be forced to revisit.

If there is no judicial review of the state courts by the federal courts then there is no recourse to the state courts. Not even an amendment would necessarily resolve the problem of differing interpretations.
 
cawacko said:
For the sake of discussion from a Libertarian perspective why not?
Click to expand...

From the ONLY libertarian perspective there is. States do not have rights. They have powers. Rights only adhere to the individual. The powers justly granted to States are only given to best secure the rights of the individual. States do not have any right or just power to violate the rights of individuals anymore than the federal government does.

The Libertarian Party supports the 14th amendment and libertarians champion the rights of individuals, not the rights of the state or States. The neo confederates who make a pretense of being libertarian are absolute frauds.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
States do not have rights. They have powers. Rights only adhere to the individual.
Click to expand...

So then when a “power” given to a State by the Constitution is ignored and or overridden by the federal government, you opine that no Constitutional “Right” Of Power is violated?

States do not have any right or just power to violate the rights of individuals anymore than the federal government does.
Click to expand...

Who said they did?

The Libertarian Party supports the 14th amendment and libertarians champion the rights of individuals, not the rights of the state or States. The neo confederates who make a pretense of being libertarian are absolute frauds.
Click to expand...

The label “Libertarian Party” is an oxymoron. Political parties are all about collectivism while true libertarianism is all about individualism.

Political parties are nothing but collective hodgepodges of disagreeable yingyangs who’s only purpose to unite is grabbing at political power just for the sake of caressing their egos and or positioning themselves to financially rape the public and or the nation and in the case of their idiot party loyalist followers i. e. partisan voters, it’s because they want government to either give them something that belongs to somebody else or they want government to force everybody else to live by their personal moral standards. In short political parties are nothing but corrupt special interest.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Yes, there is recourse for the federal courts. You can amend the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that! The Constitution hasn’t been amended since politicians found out that by putting the most partisan of judges on the court they could completely ignore the Constitution and do whatever the fuck they wanted. Walla! Obama-Care and The Patriot Act.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
That's not what social conservatives want. Look at what your politicians and jurist have done on marijuana. They also tried to ban marriage equality federally.

But, I don't consider civil rights a States' rights issue.
Click to expand...

How do the different states determining the social issues equate to big government? I don't speak for big government right wing progressives, I speak about the constitution being silent on social issues meaning they automatically belong to the states for determination.

I said nothing about repealing the civil rights laws also but I speak about federal intervention into states matters and states matters only.
 
Classic Liberal said:
So then when a “power” given to a State by the Constitution is ignored and or overridden by the federal government, you opine that no Constitutional “Right” Of Power is violated?
Click to expand...

There is no right of power. I did not say anything like that. The state only has powers, justly acquired or otherwise. They can be granted or taken away. Rights are a completely different animal.

There is no need to put "power" in quotes. Many who are claiming the tenth don't seem to understand it. Read it. Does it mention rights. No, it does not. It says powers. Read the ninth amendment? Does it say anything about powers? No, it does not not. It says rights, because it is referring to those things that adhere only to individuals.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th
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.

Who said they did?

The label “Libertarian Party” is an oxymoron. Political parties are all about collectivism while true libertarianism is all about individualism.

Political parties are nothing but collective hodgepodges of disagreeable yingyangs who’s only purpose to unite is grabbing at political power just for the sake of caressing their egos and or positioning themselves to financially rape the public and or the nation and in the case of their idiot party loyalist followers i. e. partisan voters, it’s because they want government to either give them something that belongs to somebody else or they want government to force everybody else to live by their personal moral standards. In short political parties are nothing but corrupt special interest.
Click to expand...

States Rights is an oxymoron. Political parties are a necessary fact of democratic republics.
 
Last edited:
Classic Liberal said:
Good luck with that! The Constitution hasn’t been amended since politicians found out that by putting the most partisan of judges on the court they could completely ignore the Constitution and do whatever the fuck they wanted. Walla! Obama-Care and The Patriot Act.
Click to expand...

A judge that supposedly ignores the constitution will not make amending the constitution less likely. It would make it more likely.

You ignored the other method of correction.

You also evaded the fact that this notion of eliminating federal judicial review would do nothing but leave us with 50 different interpretations of the Constitution without recourse.

The people that complain about the federal courts don't want the Bill of Rights applied to the States. They are at war with the 14th amendment. They are against the constitution not for it.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
There is no right of power. I did not say anything like that. The state only has powers, justly acquired or otherwise. They can be granted or taken away. Rights are a completely different animal.
Click to expand...

RIGHT: a justified claim or entitlement, or the freedom to do something (Encarta English Dictionary)

Actually, you’re confusing “inalienable rights” with “granted rights.” Inalienable rights are individual, creator given rights and granted rights are the powers granted to government by the people.

There is no need to put "power" in quotes. Many who are claiming the tenth don't seem to understand it. Read it. Does it mention rights. No, it does not. It says powers. Read the ninth amendment? Does it say anything about powers? No, it does not not. It says rights, because it is referring to those things that adhere only to individuals.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th
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.



States Rights is an oxymoron. Political parties are a necessary fact of democratic republics.
Click to expand...


Why are political parties a necessity to any Government?

“However political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
GEORGE WASHINGTON
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
A judge that supposedly ignores the constitution will not make amending the constitution less likely. It would make it more likely.
Click to expand...

What makes amending the Constitution less likely is the fact that Duopoly politicians have violated the Constitution so many times they’re totally comfortable now days to simply ignore it, get away with it, and do their corrupt business as usual.

You also evaded the fact that this notion of eliminating federal judicial review would do nothing but leave us with 50 different interpretations of the Constitution without recourse.
Click to expand...

Who’s promoting eliminating federal judicial review of State laws? I listed that as a recourse to State law.

The people that complain about the federal courts don't want the Bill of Rights applied to the States. They are at war with the 14th amendment. They are against the constitution not for it.
Click to expand...

Horseshit! The federal courts have allowed the federal government to trounce all over State’s RIGHTS with unconstitutional federal mandates forced on the States and taking on the federal government all manner of socialist programs and other powers and authorities granted solely to the States by the 10th Amendment.
 
Classic Liberal said:
That only equates with BIG fucking government taking unconstitutional ”LIBERTY” with the Constitution and taxpayer’s money.
Click to expand...

Without very big government to look after their thieving all the people you approve of would be in jail or Saudi Arabia, as you know.
 
Classic Liberal said:
RIGHT: a justified claim or entitlement, or the freedom to do something (Encarta English Dictionary)

Actually, you’re confusing “inalienable rights” with “granted rights.” Inalienable rights are individual, creator given rights and granted rights are the powers granted to government by the people.



Why are political parties a necessity to any Government?

“However political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
GEORGE WASHINGTON
Click to expand...

I'm not confusing anything. You are. The founders took care in the language the used. They did not use these words interchangably. They chose different words for a reason. The reason is the rights of individuals are not granted. The powers of the state are and when the violate the rights of individuals, they are unjust.
 
Classic Liberal said:
What makes amending the Constitution less likely is the fact that Duopoly politicians have violated the Constitution so many times they’re totally comfortable now days to simply ignore it, get away with it, and do their corrupt business as usual.



Who’s promoting eliminating federal judicial review of State laws? I listed that as a recourse to State law.



Horseshit! The federal courts have allowed the federal government to trounce all over State’s RIGHTS with unconstitutional federal mandates forced on the States and taking on the federal government all manner of socialist programs and other powers and authorities granted solely to the States by the 10th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Silly rabbit suggested eliminating the federal judicial review. It's what was being discussed concerning the state and federal courts. Maybe you should pay attention.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top