The G.O.P.’s Existential Crisis

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But most 14 year olds can do a pretty damn good job of interpreting the Constitution. It isn’t written in Swahili or redneck, it’s articulated in easy to understand English. Contrary to the preposterous babblings of both right and left, the Court’s judges aren’t necessary to interpret the Constitution, they’re only necessary to interpret the linguistic gymnastics that politicians construct written law from to ensure that their attempted con-job writings conform to the rule and spirit of the Constitution.

You'd be hard pressed to name the last SCOTUS justice who was 14 years old, I do believe. As we have demonstrated already, we do indeed have a problem interpreting the most basic words and concepts, because up until about 20 years ago, "marriage" meant the holy union of a man and woman in holy matrimony, for the sake of traditional family structure. Now it appears to have been interpreted a completely different way. The Constitution is comprised of much more than one single word, so it stands to reason it might also be grossly misinterpreted.

Be that as it might, I am finding a problem with your approach. You seem to think the Founding Fathers established a Libertarian oligarchy, and the rest of us are completely powerless in determining what the Constitution is interpreted to mean. Therefore, we are to bow in your presence and genuflect toward Gary Johnson, and let you somehow straighten out all the "unconstitutionality" on your own, while we sit in amazement and wonder. I just don't believe the Founding Fathers had this in mind, to be honest. I think they meticulously put together an entire system of checks and balances, and ways for "We The People" to ultimately control our own destiny. This includes a SCOTUS, and a Congress, as well as a President. Judicial, Legislative, Executive... the Three Branches of government.

You may not LIKE what our system has determined is "Constitutional" through the years, I certainly find many faults with it. But ultimately, we sorted out the many injustices, we amended what the SCOTUS got wrong, and we elected presidents who would appoint people to the court, who held original views on the interpretations regarding the Constitution. Liberals, of course, want to fill the SCOTUS with liberal ideologues, who will 're-interpret' the Constitution, to fit a liberal social agenda. You claim Libertarian views, but you weren't willing to do what it took to ensure more liberals aren't appointed to the court..... I guess you think we'll wake up to the news one day, that all of America is Libertarian, and we're looking for Classic Liberal and Gary Johnson, so they can tell us all what the Constitution means!

That’s actually what they did, they wrote the Constitution in a classical liberal language and ideology. Apparently, you have NO disagreement with my interpretation of it because you have presented NO arguments in opposition to my interpretation of it.

It's self-evident that everyone doesn't agree with your particular interpretations, or all these unconstitutional things would not be happening. The fact that they ARE happening, is evidence your interpretation is not the way the courts see it, or someone doesn't agree with your interpretation. Now you can start screaming they are all crazy and you are the only sane person, but that might not be the smartest approach to take... just saying.

This might come as a shocker to you but there have always been folks that fucking lie and try to make the Constitution say whatever they want it to say instead of what it actually says. They’re generally known by libertarians as idiots, crooks, liars, con-artist, Democrats and Republicans.

Yes, and there are also "wolves in sheep's clothing" or... Social Liberals posing as Libertarians, because they are exploiting the 'personal liberty' aspects of Libertarianism to support their activism for gay marriage. They're known here by the names Classic Liberal and Stringy, among others.

But the problem is the entire makeup of the seats of government including the courts, the Congress and the President are all occupied by either idiots, crooks, liars, con-artist and Democrats and Republicans exhibiting the traits of the first 4 on the list. That’s why the system only works to fuck over the country and its population, saddling us with 16 trillion $ in debt and undeclared unconstitutional wars including the fucking idiot violent Drug War. Of course that’s what you claim “has worked.”

Okay, so all of our entire Three-branch Government System of representative democracy is a sham? Do we need to be gathering the torches and pitchforks? Because, unless this was just you emotively venting, I don't get what you're trying to say we should do here? Obviously, America is not going to wake up tomorrow and demand a recall election of Obama so that we can anoint Gary Johnson president for life, and you the VP spot... that may happen when you dream at night, but in reality, I don't think that will likely happen anytime soon. SO.... We have to deal with reality of the moment, and that reality is the system we currently have in place, which is the same one our Founding Fathers established years ago.

 

[Robo]

up until about 20 years ago, "marriage" meant the holy union of a man and woman in holy matrimony, for the sake of traditional family structure. Now it appears to have been interpreted a completely different way.

You mean that’s what it meant to you and folks of religious flavor don’t you? I’ll argue that more often than not marriage to most folks was about sexual or financial convenience, or for most women it was about wanting to have babies and a male to support her and her babies while the majority of males were more in tune with the sexual convenience of marriage. Most only connected the religious ritual out of established tradition. Legally in every State I know of marriage is nothing more than a contract between two agreeable people and always was.

The Constitution is comprised of much more than one single word, so it stands to reason it might also be grossly misinterpreted.

What in the Constitution do you find so difficult to interpret? Most reasonable and honest folks can read it and pretty damn well understand the majority of it with little or no difficulty. Unlike me, I do realize you have a very difficult time with it because you, unlike me, never use its verse, article or amendments to support your preposterous arguments. Nowhere in the Constitution do I find any verse, article or amendment that even remotely indicates that a marriage contract is, should be or must be what you claim it is. The Constitution rightfully avoids those kinds of issues and awards them to the States or the people in amendment 10.

 

[Robo]

Be that as it might, I am finding a problem with your approach. You seem to think the Founding Fathers established a Libertarian oligarchy, and the rest of us are completely powerless in determining what the Constitution is interpreted to mean. Therefore, we are to bow in your presence and genuflect toward Gary Johnson, and let you somehow straighten out all the "unconstitutionality" on your own, while we sit in amazement and wonder. I just don't believe the Founding Fathers had this in mind, to be honest. I think they meticulously put together an entire system of checks and balances, and ways for "We The People" to ultimately control our own destiny. This includes a SCOTUS, and a Congress, as well as a President. Judicial, Legislative, Executive... the Three Branches of government.

Yada, yada, yada! If that’s your best argument, you surely seem a very small thinker. You could at least try to use the Constitution verse, article and amendments to back up your preposterous claims and bigotry, however all you do is yammer on and on with pathetic mumblings and ramblings. Your every continuing post gets less and less interesting and your arguments more and more absurd.

You may not LIKE what our system has determined is "Constitutional" through the years, I certainly find many faults with it. But ultimately, we sorted out the many injustices, we amended what the SCOTUS got wrong, and we elected presidents who would appoint people to the court, who held original views on the interpretations regarding the Constitution. Liberals, of course, want to fill the SCOTUS with liberal ideologues, who will 're-interpret' the Constitution, to fit a liberal social agenda. You claim Libertarian views, but you weren't willing to do what it took to ensure more liberals aren't appointed to the court..... I guess you think we'll wake up to the news one day, that all of America is Libertarian, and we're looking for Classic Liberal and Gary Johnson, so they can tell us all what the Constitution means!

Of course that’s not the case at all. I’m simply making constitutional arguments using constitutional verse, articles and amendments to support my arguments while you cry, piss and moan about the libertarian boogiemen trying to “victimize” you and brainwash you.

It's self-evident that everyone doesn't agree with your particular interpretations, or all these unconstitutional things would not be happening. The fact that they ARE happening, is evidence your interpretation is not the way the courts see it, or someone doesn't agree with your interpretation. Now you can start screaming they are all crazy and you are the only sane person, but that might not be the smartest approach to take... just saying.

But my argument is that the reason so many don’t agree with libertarianism is because the masses have been bribed and hoodwinked by both Democrats and Republicans and that the vast majority of voters is uninformed, politically disinterested and politically stupid. I prove my points and arguments with articles and amendments to our Constitution while you are at a total loss for any such credible arguments in opposition. All you can present is your brainwashed prejudices, bigotry and right-wing partisan horseshit with no foundation in anything except neo-con authoritarianism. You totally refuse to debunk any of my constitutional interpretations with any opposing interpretations. If you truly believe I’m sooooo wrong, where’s your opposing arguments that are backed with your opposing constitutional interpretations? Oh! That’s right, you have none, huh?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yada, yada, yada! If that’s your best argument, you surely seem a very small thinker. You could at least try to use the Constitution verse, article and amendments to back up your preposterous claims and bigotry, however all you do is yammer on and on with pathetic mumblings and ramblings. Your every continuing post gets less and less interesting and your arguments more and more absurd.

Yes, my best argument is, we have a system designed by the Founding Fathers, and this system has worked for over 200 years. There is nothing preposterous about it, nor is it absurd. I don't need to cite articles and amendments, nor do I need to cite SCOTUS rulings. I've admitted, over the years, the SCOTUS has sometimes gotten it wrong, when they did, the legislative branch has corrected the error, and when the legislative and judicial branches have failed, the people have added amendments to the constitution, in order to make it perfectly clear. This is a much more desirable system than having a lone message board jackass who claims to be libertarian, dictating what the constitution means.

Of course that’s not the case at all. I’m simply making constitutional arguments using constitutional verse, articles and amendments to support my arguments while you cry, piss and moan about the libertarian boogiemen trying to “victimize” you and brainwash you.

No, you are stating your opinion on what the Constitution says, and I am pointing out that everyone obviously does not agree with your interpretations. I.m not crying, not pissing, not moaning. I'm not creating boogiemen or claiming you've been brainwashed, in fact, that sounds an awful lot like you, when you start ranting about the corrupt politicians whose self-serving agendas have rendered the entire system worthless.

But my argument is that the reason so many don’t agree with libertarianism is because the masses have been bribed and hoodwinked by both Democrats and Republicans and that the vast majority of voters is uninformed, politically disinterested and politically stupid. I prove my points and arguments with articles and amendments to our Constitution while you are at a total loss for any such credible arguments in opposition. All you can present is your brainwashed prejudices, bigotry and right-wing partisan horseshit with no foundation in anything except neo-con authoritarianism. You totally refuse to debunk any of my constitutional interpretations with any opposing interpretations. If you truly believe I’m sooooo wrong, where’s your opposing arguments that are backed with your opposing constitutional interpretations? Oh! That’s right, you have none, huh?

Now who is creating a boogieman?

Again, I have not said that your opinions are right or wrong, just that not everyone agrees with your opinions and interpretations, when it comes to the Constitution. You want to argue this is preposterous, that anyone can read and understand the Constitution, and it obviously means what you've interpreted it to mean. My counter to that is simple, if that were the case, there would be no need for a SCOTUS. We'd all keep a copy of the Constitution in our pockets, and whenever some issue arose of constitutionality, we'd just whip out our copy and show the other party what is clearly and obviously stated in the constitution, then both parties would agree and the issues would be resolved. But the fact of the matter is, that is not the case at all. People have all kinds of varying degrees of interpretation, regarding what the Constitution says. Therefore, we have a court body who hears the cases and makes decisions based on their interpretations.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

up until about 20 years ago, "marriage" meant the holy union of a man and woman in holy matrimony, for the sake of traditional family structure. Now it appears to have been interpreted a completely different way.

You mean that’s what it meant to you and folks of religious flavor don’t you? I’ll argue that more often than not marriage to most folks was about sexual or financial convenience, or for most women it was about wanting to have babies and a male to support her and her babies while the majority of males were more in tune with the sexual convenience of marriage. Most only connected the religious ritual out of established tradition. Legally in every State I know of marriage is nothing more than a contract between two agreeable people and always was.

Again, we've established that a good many of our laws are based on moral determination. We've also established you are most uncomfortable with removing all moral constraint from our laws, as exemplified with the 'sexual naturalist' argument. Your bigoted opinions of how you believe most people view marriage, has nothing to do with the argument, it is merely your bigoted opinion. And again, if marriage were nothing more than a contract between two agreeable people, there wouldn't be any issue for us to discuss here. Obviously, some people simply disagree with your opinion on this. As you've demonstrated, you have a real problem accepting the fact that other people don't agree with you or your interpretations.

What in the Constitution do you find so difficult to interpret? Most reasonable and honest folks can read it and pretty damn well understand the majority of it with little or no difficulty. Unlike me, I do realize you have a very difficult time with it because you, unlike me, never use its verse, article or amendments to support your preposterous arguments. Nowhere in the Constitution do I find any verse, article or amendment that even remotely indicates that a marriage contract is, should be or must be what you claim it is. The Constitution rightfully avoids those kinds of issues and awards them to the States or the people in amendment 10.

Again, if we lived in your fantasy world, where everyone agreed with your interpretations, and we could all read the constitution and find the same interpretation and meaning, there would be no need for a SCOTUS or even a legislative branch, we'd all just carry a copy of the constitution with us, and whenever an issue arose, we'd whip it out and show the other party where they are wrong, and since we'd all agree on interpretations, there would be no further issue. But we don't live in such a world.

 

[Robo]

Yes, my best argument is, we have a system designed by the Founding Fathers, and this system has worked for over 200 years. There is nothing preposterous about it, nor is it absurd. I don't need to cite articles and amendments, nor do I need to cite SCOTUS rulings. I've admitted, over the years, the SCOTUS has sometimes gotten it wrong, when they did, the legislative branch has corrected the error, and when the legislative and judicial branches have failed, the people have added amendments to the constitution, in order to make it perfectly clear. This is a much more desirable system than having a lone message board jackass who claims to be libertarian, dictating what the constitution means.

Your entire argument is trash. If it had any merit to it, you’d have posted counter arguments that oppose what I’ve said the Constitution says. Instead you post the feeble argument that “people don’t agree with me.” So, I’ll simply ask WHO doesn’t agree with me and WHY don’t they agree? Now let’s see if you can come up with a rational answer for that.

No, you are stating your opinion on what the Constitution says, and I am pointing out that everyone obviously does not agree with your interpretations.

WHO? Why not? What’s the counter argument to any interpretation I’ve made of the Constitution? Oh! That’s right you don’t know WHO disagrees with me and you don’t know WHY they disagree that’s simply the best of your feeble pathetic arguments. How sad!

Again, I have not said that your opinions are right or wrong, just that not everyone agrees with your opinions and interpretations, when it comes to the Constitution.

In other words you have no argument!

You want to argue this is preposterous, that anyone can read and understand the Constitution, and it obviously means what you've interpreted it to mean. My counter to that is simple, if that were the case, there would be no need for a SCOTUS.

And my counter to that is the same as it has been in this exchange. The Supreme Court isn’t necessary for interpreting the Constitution, most anybody can do that. The Supreme Court is only necessary to interpret the linguistic gymnastics politicians write into law to determine if the written law is in accordance with the Constitution.

We'd all keep a copy of the Constitution in our pockets, and whenever some issue arose of constitutionality, we'd just whip out our copy and show the other party what is clearly and obviously stated in the constitution, then both parties would agree and the issues would be resolved.

What a preposterous dreamer you are! Damn few politicians carry a copy of the Constitution around with them nor do they care to. Most don’t even bother to be loyal to their oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Most spend their political time in office searching for ways to violate the Constitution and bribe the vote. You see the problem is that the voting minions are mostly so fregging stupid that they can’t even tell you what’s in the Constitution. They’re brainwashed by the duopoly corrupt political parties and bribed of their vote with social programs that the federal government has no constitutional authority to even be operating.

But the fact of the matter is, that is not the case at all. People have all kinds of varying degrees of interpretation, regarding what the Constitution says. Therefore, we have a court body who hears the cases and makes decisions based on their interpretations.

The fact is we are governed by liars and crooks who endlessly violate the Constitution and don’t even give a fuck about the Constitution. And the fact is that we have a voting body of fucking idiots that don’t even know what’s in the Constitution and don’t give a fuck what’s in the Constitution they only care about their share of the bribery loot or legislation to support their prejudices and bigotry.

 

[Robo]

Again, we've established that a good many of our laws are based on moral determination. We've also established you are most uncomfortable with removing all moral constraint from our laws, as exemplified with the 'sexual naturalist' argument. Your bigoted opinions of how you believe most people view marriage, has nothing to do with the argument, it is merely your bigoted opinion. And again, if marriage were nothing more than a contract between two agreeable people, there wouldn't be any issue for us to discuss here. Obviously, some people simply disagree with your opinion on this. As you've demonstrated, you have a real problem accepting the fact that other people don't agree with you or your interpretations.

Who doesn’t agree with me and WHY? Oh! Again that’s right you can’t and won’t answer those questions because you have no credible counter arguments.

My “OPINIONS” are based on and verified by constitutional articles and amendments, what’s your opinions based on? Oh! That’s right, they’re based solely in your prejudices and bigotry and neo-con rightwing talking points. You can’t defend the stupid violent Drug War or the rightwing opposition to gay marriage. I can and have opposed both with constitutional articles and amendments.

Again, if we lived in your fantasy world, where everyone agreed with your interpretations, and we could all read the constitution and find the same interpretation and meaning, there would be no need for a SCOTUS or even a legislative branch, we'd all just carry a copy of the constitution with us, and whenever an issue arose, we'd whip it out and show the other party where they are wrong, and since we'd all agree on interpretations, there would be no further issue. But we don't live in such a world.

Yada, yada, yada! Same old bullshit totally devoid of any evidence, constitutional foundation and logical argument simply babbling idiotic rhetoric. Let me know if you ever come up with a credible argument. That’ll be the day!!!!!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You keep asking, "who doesn't agree with me an why?" Okay, let's take any number of things you've claimed are unconstitutional. The Patriot Act, for example. You argue that it's unconstitutional, but obviously it was allowed to stand as constitutional law, because the Patriot Act does exist, and was not invalidated. Therefore, other people obviously disagree with your interpretation. It's your OPINION that it's unconstitutional, and you can even make a reasonable argument to support that opinion, and I might even be inclined to agree with your opinion, but we're not on the SCOTUS.

On and on you rant, becoming more and more vitriolic and hostile toward our current system, and it's a bit scary. I honestly don't understand what you are suggesting we do here. It's almost as if you believe we should abolish the SCOTUS, get rid of Congress, and appoint you the judge of Constitutional Law, where you would make your personal rulings for the rest of us, on what the Constitution says. I'm sorry, but I'm not ready to live in that world. After all, you think the Constitution permits homosexuals to pervert the meaning of traditional marriage in order to legitimize their sexual deviation. I don't interpret the Constitution as granting such a right to homosexuals.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

My “OPINIONS” are based on and verified by constitutional articles and amendments, what’s your opinions based on? Oh! That’s right, they’re based solely in your prejudices and bigotry and neo-con rightwing talking points. You can’t defend the stupid violent Drug War or the rightwing opposition to gay marriage. I can and have opposed both with constitutional articles and amendments.

Correction: You've opposed them with YOUR INTERPRETATION AND OPINION of constitutional articles and amendments. That's the point I keep trying to get you to see, not everyone agrees with your interpretation and opinions. And here's the real kicker, there's never going to be a time or place where everyone does agree with you on this. That may be a possibility in your fantasy world, but here in the real world, where we're not going to abolish the SCOTUS or system of government, that is just not the case.

 

[Timshel]

Yes, and there are also "wolves in sheep's clothing" or... Social Liberals posing as Libertarians, because they are exploiting the 'personal liberty' aspects of Libertarianism to support their activism for gay marriage. They're known here by the names Classic Liberal and Stringy, among others.

Name an issue where my position is not libertarian? You support all manner of government welfare programs so long as they are directed towards your socially conservative agenda, which is in violation of the constitution. Our founders intended the government to be secular and understood that as an important method of protecting personal liberty. You can rail against that all you want, but it is quite clear. You also disagree with their opposition to a standing army and an aggressive miltary. In fact, the only point on which you seem to care about defending the original Constitution is in it's great error of allowing states to oppress minorities and treat them as property. You are at war with incorporation of the 14th amendment, especially, as it relates to the 9th.

You have no basis on which to question my sincerity. You lie about your views claiming you are not motivated by the Christian faith, a homophobe or a racists, but it is quite clear what you are about you fascist piece of shit. You can't have your way on homoseuxality and more so you constantly troll making absurd claims that there is no difference between oppression of blacks/women and laws designed to protect children or prohibiting sex with animals. You don't even actually support those things but you will claim to to further your aims. Your arguments are nothing but the petty tantrums and rationalizations of a childish mind.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Name an issue where my position is not libertarian? You support all manner of government welfare programs so long as they are directed towards your socially conservative agenda, which is in violation of the constitution. Our founders intended the government to be secular and understood that as an important method of protecting personal liberty. You can rail against that all you want, but it is quite clear. You also disagree with their opposition to a standing army and an aggressive miltary. In fact, the only point on which you seem to care about defending the original Constitution is in it's great error of allowing states to oppress minorities and treat them as property. You are at war with incorporation of the 14th amendment, especially, as it relates to the 9th.

You have no basis on which to question my sincerity. You lie about your views claiming you are not motivated by the Christian faith, a homophobe or a racists, but it is quite clear what you are about you fascist piece of shit. You can't have your way on homoseuxality and more so you constantly troll making absurd claims that there is no difference between oppression of blacks/women and laws designed to protect children or prohibiting sex with animals. You don't even actually support those things but you will claim to to further your aims. Your arguments are nothing but the petty tantrums and rationalizations of a childish mind.

Well Stringy, you have redefined "libertarian" to conform with your personal world view, and so, me trying to show you where your world view isn't in accordance to libertarianism, is futile. You certainly don't support personal freedom and liberty when it contradicts your world view. The personal freedom and liberty of religious people or those who support traditional marriage, is unacceptable to your intolerant ass, and you'll do everything in your power to restrict their freedom and liberty to live their lives and raise their families the way they see fit. You don't mind meddling in their personal lives or encroaching on their freedom and liberty, because you think you have some moral superiority to decide what's right and wrong for them.

You are an activist social liberal. You support and condone central government authority to enforce your liberal social agenda. You PRETEND to be a libertarian, who believes in personal freedom and liberty, but you are simply exploiting that aspect of libertarianism in order to push a liberal social agenda. I personally know libertarians who are just as opposed to government endorsing gay marriage, as you are for it. They don't believe government should be involved one way or the other, it should be left to the people and communities to decide, because that's what "personal liberty" is all about. To you, libertarianism is about government enforcing liberal social policy against the will of the people. That is a complete contradiction of libertarian principle, but you've convinced yourself that it's not. And here you are, wanting me to "prove" this to you, but your actions and words prove it already.

 

[Timshel]

Well Stringy, you have redefined "libertarian" to conform with your personal world view, and so, me trying to show you where your world view isn't in accordance to libertarianism, is futile. You certainly don't support personal freedom and liberty when it contradicts your world view. The personal freedom and liberty of religious people or those who support traditional marriage, is unacceptable to your intolerant ass, and you'll do everything in your power to restrict their freedom and liberty to live their lives and raise their families the way they see fit. You don't mind meddling in their personal lives or encroaching on their freedom and liberty, because you think you have some moral superiority to decide what's right and wrong for them.

You are an activist social liberal. You support and condone central government authority to enforce your liberal social agenda. You PRETEND to be a libertarian, who believes in personal freedom and liberty, but you are simply exploiting that aspect of libertarianism in order to push a liberal social agenda. I personally know libertarians who are just as opposed to government endorsing gay marriage, as you are for it. They don't believe government should be involved one way or the other, it should be left to the people and communities to decide, because that's what "personal liberty" is all about. To you, libertarianism is about government enforcing liberal social policy against the will of the people. That is a complete contradiction of libertarian principle, but you've convinced yourself that it's not. And here you are, wanting me to "prove" this to you, but your actions and words prove it already.

You can't give one example because it does not exist.

Your notion of liberty is a collective right to oppress. Typical Orwellian bs from a fascist.

As long as the state is involved in the dissolution of marriages and determining the proper distribution of personal estates and communal property it will necessarily be involved in marriage. It should not be allowed to discriminate.

The only one of us to constantly misrepresents themselves is you.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You can't give one example because it does not exist.

Your notion of liberty is a collective right to oppress. Typical Orwellian bs from a fascist.

As long as the state is involved in the dissolution of marriages and determining the proper distribution of personal estates and communal property it will necessarily be involved in marriage. It should not be allowed to discriminate.

The only one of us to constantly misrepresents themselves is you.

Again, I gave a perfect example, your liberal activism for gay marriage! We've been over the "discrimination" argument, no one is being discriminated against. It does not matter if you are gay or straight, you can't marry same sex partners unless your state has passed a law allowing it. No homosexual is being denied a traditional marriage licence. Homosexuals are also not prohibited from living together, engaging in homosexual activity, or calling their arrangement whatever they please. There are also legal instruments available to remedy any personal estate or communal property issue, if such a thing is desired by any two adult parties.

It's just absolutely NOT discrimination, and if you want to argue that it is "invidious discrimination" then it's just as "invidious discriminatory" to deny the same right or freedom to ANY sexual proclivity. Of course, you've demonstrated your ability to dance back to the comfortable constraints of moral determination there, where you get to define where our moral boundaries are. And this is the whole problem with your view, it shape-shifts and morphs into whatever you need it to be, words change in definition, things change in meaning, depending on the specific point you need to make at any given time. If that is to be our 'standard' then nothing means anything, we can change and alter traditional understanding and meanings as we please, and make the law say whatever we need for it to say to fit our agenda.

A TRUE Libertarian might argue that government doesn't have ANY place in establishing the legitimacy of ANY marriage, or telling ANY person what they must accept as marriage. This would mean you don't push for gay marriage OR DOMA, you don't believe either is a valid government interest. But here, we see you are an ardent supporter of the liberal social agenda, and you are simply hiding behind "libertarianism" in order to conceal your motives. My personal view is as "libertarian" as yours, I think this matter should be left to THE PEOPLE and the STATE, and decided at the ballot box. I have never pushed for society to accept what I personally believe, I have always accepted that society should be free to make this determination on its own, regardless of what my personal beliefs are.

 

[Robo]

I might even be inclined to agree with your opinion, but we're not on the SCOTUS.

The ideologues on the Supreme Court don’t necessarily decide what’s constitutional and what’s not constitutional, they only decide what’s gonna be “legal” or “illegal” according to the political ideological agenda behind written law and according to which political ideological partisan half of the duopoly is in the majority on the Court. Would you agree with that? If not, why not?

On and on you rant, becoming more and more vitriolic and hostile toward our current system, and it's a bit scary. I honestly don't understand what you are suggesting we do here. It's almost as if you believe we should abolish the SCOTUS, get rid of Congress, and appoint you the judge of Constitutional Law, where you would make your personal rulings for the rest of us, on what the Constitution says.

Not at all. I’ve already given you the solution to America’s woes. Find, support and vote for constitutionalist candidates to replace the crooked morons and socialist bastards that now occupy our government whereby they, (the constitutionalist), when in the seats of power will select constitutionalist judges to the courts. Would you agree with that? If not, why not?

I'm sorry, but I'm not ready to live in that world. After all, you think the Constitution permits homosexuals to pervert the meaning of traditional marriage in order to legitimize their sexual deviation. I don't interpret the Constitution as granting such a right to homosexuals.

But there is no constitutional protection for what you claim as “traditional marriage.” On the contrary, amendment 9 of our Constitution protects the rights of citizens to do whatever they want as long as they don’t violate any right or freedoms of others and you have no valid argument showing how gay marriage contracts violate anybody’s rights or freedoms. Do you agree with that? If not, why not?

Correction: You've opposed them with YOUR INTERPRETATION AND OPINION of constitutional articles and amendments. That's the point I keep trying to get you to see, not everyone agrees with your interpretation and opinions.

But you present no interpretation of your own in opposition to mine. So, apparently you must totally agree with my interpretations. If not, why not? Have you any credible arguments you wish to back up with constitutional articles or amendments? If not, why not?

And here's the real kicker, there's never going to be a time or place where everyone does agree with you on this. That may be a possibility in your fantasy world, but here in the real world, where we're not going to abolish the SCOTUS or system of government, that is just not the case.

But this discussion/argument is just between you and me. As long as we agree is all that actually matters in this discussion. Of course you totally agree with me because you deliver no opposing arguments to anything I’ve said. The Supreme Court is made up of political partisan ideologues, right? The Supreme Court doesn’t necessarily decide what is constitutional or not constitutional, the courts simply decide what’s “legal” and what’s “not legal,” right? There’s no constitutional protection for what you call “traditional marriage” and the 9th amendment protects people’s right to do whatever they want including making marriage contracts with whoever they want as long as they don’t violate any right or freedom of others and you have no rational argument showing how a gay marriage contract violates any right or freedom of others, right? The Drug War is unconstitutional because the 4th amendment guarantees the right of people’s privacy and the 9th amendment protects the people’s right to put into their own bodies whatever they want and the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of the law and since the government had to pass and ratify the 18th amendment to prohibit alcohol, the government surely would have to pass and ratify an amendment to prohibit drugs, right? If I’m wrong about all of these things, WHERE and WHY am I wrong?

Now that’s the real kicker!!!

Please respond with credibility, constitutional evidence and rational conversation. Your excuses crying about being victimized and dictated to by libertarians is getting very boring and tiring.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Again, I gave a perfect example, your liberal activism for gay marriage! We've been over the "discrimination" argument, no one is being discriminated against. It does not matter if you are gay or straight, you can't marry same sex partners unless your state has passed a law allowing it. No homosexual is being denied a traditional marriage licence. Homosexuals are also not prohibited from living together, engaging in homosexual activity, or calling their arrangement whatever they please. There are also legal instruments available to remedy any personal estate or communal property issue, if such a thing is desired by any two adult parties.

It's just absolutely NOT discrimination, and if you want to argue that it is "invidious discrimination" then it's just as "invidious discriminatory" to deny the same right or freedom to ANY sexual proclivity. Of course, you've demonstrated your ability to dance back to the comfortable constraints of moral determination there, where you get to define where our moral boundaries are. And this is the whole problem with your view, it shape-shifts and morphs into whatever you need it to be, words change in definition, things change in meaning, depending on the specific point you need to make at any given time. If that is to be our 'standard' then nothing means anything, we can change and alter traditional understanding and meanings as we please, and make the law say whatever we need for it to say to fit our agenda.

A TRUE Libertarian might argue that government doesn't have ANY place in establishing the legitimacy of ANY marriage, or telling ANY person what they must accept as marriage. This would mean you don't push for gay marriage OR DOMA, you don't believe either is a valid government interest. But here, we see you are an ardent supporter of the liberal social agenda, and you are simply hiding behind "libertarianism" in order to conceal your motives. My personal view is as "libertarian" as yours, I think this matter should be left to THE PEOPLE and the STATE, and decided at the ballot box. I have never pushed for society to accept what I personally believe, I have always accepted that society should be free to make this determination on its own, regardless of what my personal beliefs are.

But it is discrimination; just like when inter-racial marriages weren't allowed or recognized.
Those who were against inter-racial marriages would also state that Blacks were allowed to marry other Blacks and Whites were allowed to marry other Whites; therefore there was no discrimination.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The ideologues on the Supreme Court don’t necessarily decide what’s constitutional and what’s not constitutional, they only decide what’s gonna be “legal” or “illegal” according to the political ideological agenda behind written law and according to which political ideological partisan half of the duopoly is in the majority on the Court. Would you agree with that? If not, why not?

Yes, the justices on the SCOTUS definitely decide what is Constitutional, according to their interpretation of the Constitution. In the overwhelming majority of cases, this is a split decision, which should be your first clue that people very often have differing interpretations of what the Constitution says. In all cases, both sides generally write an opinion supporting their interpretation, and it is legitimately supported by specific articles and amendments found in the Constitution. Again, if the comprehension and understanding of our Constitution was crystal clear for everyone, how could this be the case? Wouldn't they simply all read the Constitution to mean the same thing? The fact is, these 9 specially appointed people, who have devoted their lives to understanding the Constitution, can and do, often disagree on what it says.

Now we could get into a very deep philosophical conversation over what the court has ruled the Constitution means, and what we believe the Founding Fathers intended it to mean, or what the unvarnished truth of the document reveals in meaning. For example, when the Constitution was written and ratified, no one interpreted the Constitution to give slaves the right to freedom, and a large chunk of our population remained in shackles and chains. Obviously, at that time, it wasn't unconstitutional, but obviously to us today, it is highly unconstitutional. So what happened? Well, the 13th and 14th Amendments happened! Not to mention a civil war. Over time, society changed the meaning of "person" to include black persons, who were previously determined to be akin to livestock. Still, for another hundred years, the court upheld that it wasn't unconstitutional to deny black people the right to vote. Now, in retrospect, it was unconstitutional, we now have that understanding and interpretation without question, but during that time, when the court heard the cases, it was not interpreted this way. No one was running around claiming the courts were ignoring the Constitution, we accepted their interpretation as Constitutional. When we disagree, as a society, with how the court has interpreted the Constitution, we can ratify a new amendment in order to clarify the interpretation. Or in the case of voter suppression, we can pass a legislative act which is based on the Constitution, to which the court then has to consider in its findings. Still, the point I have been making is, the actual interpretations of the Constitution varies from person to person, there is no 'universal' understanding or interpretation.

Not at all. I’ve already given you the solution to America’s woes. Find, support and vote for constitutionalist candidates to replace the crooked morons and socialist bastards that now occupy our government whereby they, (the constitutionalist), when in the seats of power will select constitutionalist judges to the courts. Would you agree with that? If not, why not?

Again.... We can all have a variety of interpretations on what the Constitution says. SCOTUS cases are very rarely unanimous, so we know for a fact that thinking intelligent people can often disagree starkly, on what the Constitution says and means. I can only assume, by "constitutional candidate" you mean a candidate who's interpretation of the Constitution varies from what has currently been determined to be Constitutional by the court. That being the case, you could just as easily say you support the "unconstitutional candidate!" Because what IS Constitutional at the time, is what the SCOTUS rules is Constitutional. If we disagree, we have several avenues available to change things. What you mean by "constitutional candidate" is someone who shares your same opinion on interpretation. There is nothing to ensure a less ideological viewpoint, just one that is different from the current viewpoint.

But there is no constitutional protection for what you claim as “traditional marriage.” On the contrary, amendment 9 of our Constitution protects the rights of citizens to do whatever they want as long as they don’t violate any right or freedoms of others and you have no valid argument showing how gay marriage contracts violate anybody’s rights or freedoms. Do you agree with that? If not, why not?

No, you have an OPINION on what Amendment 9 says and means, it's YOUR interpretation. Others disagree with you, that is the point I have been trying to get you to understand. The 9th certainly does NOT say that we can do whatever the hell we please as long as its not violating the rights of someone else. If that is what was intended, it would say those words exactly, but it doesn't. Therefore, it is open to interpretation. This is precisely what scares me about you and your "constitutional" candidates. You want to pretend, since you've tagged the label "constitutionalist" to them, they somehow have a hubris over the rest of us in their interpretation and understanding of the constitution.

But you present no interpretation of your own in opposition to mine. So, apparently you must totally agree with my interpretations. If not, why not? Have you any credible arguments you wish to back up with constitutional articles or amendments? If not, why not?

Because the argument here is not about whether I personally agree or disagree with your interpretations. I'm merely pointing out reality to someone who is stuck in a fantasy world. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the Constitution. We can argue back and forth over our interpretations of what the Constitution says, but the bottom line is, we're not on the SCOTUS, so it really doesn't matter. And even the SCOTUS is most likely going to have disagreement on what the Constitution says, on any given case.

The Constitution goes out of its way to restrict power of the Federal government. I can't find where it grants government the authority to even sanction traditional marriage, much less, attempt to define it for everyone, based on sexuality. It certainly doesn't give government the authority to tell me that marriage includes homosexuals, when my religious beliefs forbid homosexual unions. This is encroaching on my 1st Amendment rights to free religious expression. And by the way, you don't HAVE to agree with my interpretation here, I acknowledge that.

But this discussion/argument is just between you and me. As long as we agree is all that actually matters in this discussion. Of course you totally agree with me because you deliver no opposing arguments to anything I’ve said. The Supreme Court is made up of political partisan ideologues, right? The Supreme Court doesn’t necessarily decide what is constitutional or not constitutional, the courts simply decide what’s “legal” and what’s “not legal,” right? There’s no constitutional protection for what you call “traditional marriage” and the 9th amendment protects people’s right to do whatever they want including making marriage contracts with whoever they want as long as they don’t violate any right or freedom of others and you have no rational argument showing how a gay marriage contract violates any right or freedom of others, right? The Drug War is unconstitutional because the 4th amendment guarantees the right of people’s privacy and the 9th amendment protects the people’s right to put into their own bodies whatever they want and the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection of the law and since the government had to pass and ratify the 18th amendment to prohibit alcohol, the government surely would have to pass and ratify an amendment to prohibit drugs, right? If I’m wrong about all of these things, WHERE and WHY am I wrong?

Now that’s the real kicker!!!

Please respond with credibility, constitutional evidence and rational conversation. Your excuses crying about being victimized and dictated to by libertarians is getting very boring and tiring.

As you can see, we fundamentally disagree from the start, and your entire argument is based on how you start. I reject the notion that I must present an argument against your points in order to conclude that others disagree with your point. It should be self-evident, unless you are the world's biggest narcissist, that everyone doesn't agree with your viewpoint, understandings and interpretations regarding the Constitution.

You may very well have some valid opinions regarding the 4th and 9th, but you don't have a vote on the SCOTUS, so your opinions don't matter. They are going to ultimately decide what is or isn't "constitutional" and law of the land. Most of the time, they are going to sharply disagree on those interpretations, and both sides will release an opinion, and it will articulate specific points and understandings of their constitutional interpretations.

You like to run to the Founding Fathers and what they intended, but through the course of our history, We The People have acted as the Founding Fathers, and written 27 various intentions into the Constitution. Blasphemous as that may seem to a Purist such as yourself, we have very often petitioned government for a redress of grievance, assembled and demanded reforms, and ultimately changed our nation. This process has been never-ending. To somehow pretend we can't change the meaning and intent of the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, is quite simply absurd and ignorant, given our history of doing precisely that. You argue that the Patriot Act is "unconstitutional" but that is your opinion based on your interpretation, the fact remains, not everyone agrees with your opinion, most importantly, the justices sitting on the SCOTUS. Granted, some of the justices made your very arguments, but the court ruled the Patriot Act was within the bounds of Constitutionality.

Now you are free to disagree with their ruling. You can maintain that it's not constitutional, and you can assemble, petition for redress, pass legislation or even amend the Constitution, but you simply can not state that the Patriot Act IS unconstitutional. At this time, it's not, according to SCOTUS ruling. I don't have to counter your arguments to point this fact out. The bottom line is, not everyone agrees with your opinion.

 

[Robo]

Yes, the justices on the SCOTUS definitely decide what is Constitutional, according to their interpretation of the Constitution. In the overwhelming majority of cases, this is a split decision, which should be your first clue that people very often have differing interpretations of what the Constitution says.

It should be your first clue that the court is stacked with fucking political ideologues that have no concerns with the elementary language and understanding of the Constitution but rather simply seek to further their politically biased agendas.

No, you have an OPINION on what Amendment 9 says and means, it's YOUR interpretation. Others disagree with you, that is the point I have been trying to get you to understand. The 9th certainly does NOT say that we can do whatever the hell we please as long as its not violating the rights of someone else. If that is what was intended, it would say those words exactly, but it doesn't. Therefore, it is open to interpretation. This is precisely what scares me about you and your "constitutional" candidates. You want to pretend, since you've tagged the label "constitutionalist" to them, they somehow have a hubris over the rest of us in their interpretation and understanding of the constitution.

OK, I presented my interpretation of amendment 9, what’s yours?

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Amendment 9, United States Constitution)

I say amendment 9 is saying that “the people” have every and any right to do anything they want as long as they don’t infringe on any rights of others. Because the only possible disclaimer to amendment 9 is one cannot assume a right that violates another’s rights. Thereby, since what free adults put into their own bodies and who they make agreeable marriage contracts with violates “NOBODY’S” rights or freedoms. What say ye ole bigoted one? Tell us your interpretation of amendment 9.

Because the argument here is not about whether I personally agree or disagree with your interpretations. I'm merely pointing out reality to someone who is stuck in a fantasy world. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the Constitution. We can argue back and forth over our interpretations of what the Constitution says, but the bottom line is, we're not on the SCOTUS, so it really doesn't matter. And even the SCOTUS is most likely going to have disagreement on what the Constitution says, on any given case.

Oh but it does matter! You claim “others,” who ever the fuck they’re supposed to be disagree with my interpretations and that’s your total argument in a fucking nut shell. Actually, the Constitution is the peoples guarantee of individual freedom and limited government. So, if the people don’t know how to interpret their guarantee, what the hell good is it? Is the government and its court your mother, your father, or your nanny? Do you need a corrupt government and it’s court to decide what your rights and freedoms are for you or can you do that for yourself?

If you don’t disagree with my interpretations, then what in hell is your argument aside from blather and shovel loads of rhetorical horseshit?

The Constitution goes out of its way to restrict power of the Federal government. I can't find where it grants government the authority to even sanction traditional marriage, much less, attempt to define it for everyone, based on sexuality. It certainly doesn't give government the authority to tell me that marriage includes homosexuals, when my religious beliefs forbid homosexual unions. This is encroaching on my 1st Amendment rights to free religious expression. And by the way, you don't HAVE to agree with my interpretation here, I acknowledge that.

Oh! So then you see “FREEDOMS” for homosexuals and equal treatment under State laws as somehow an infringement on your religious rights? OK! Now articulate just how your religious rights are infringed upon by a gay marriage. Do they prevent you from having a heterosexual marriage? Do homosexual marriages make your religious activities null and void? Do they keep you from your church and “YOUR” moral principles? Do homosexual marriages force you to become homosexual? Just how does a homosexual marriage infringe on any of your rights? How is your “free religious expression” violated?

As you can see, we fundamentally disagree from the start, and your entire argument is based on how you start. I reject the notion that I must present an argument against your points in order to conclude that others disagree with your point. It should be self-evident, unless you are the world's biggest narcissist, that everyone doesn't agree with your viewpoint, understandings and interpretations regarding the Constitution.

What I can see is you have no argument!!! That should be perfectly evident to everybody and anybody.

You may very well have some valid opinions regarding the 4th and 9th, but you don't have a vote on the SCOTUS, so your opinions don't matter.

Oh but they do matter to me and every honest unbiased citizen because the Constitution is our written guarantee of inalienable rights and freedoms. If I expect government to protect my inalienable rights and freedoms, (the only rightful authority and duty of government), then I sure as hell expect that an honest and rightful government shall also protect the inalienable rights and freedoms of others/everybody. That of course would include homosexuals and the rights of others to decide for themselves what they shall and shall not put into their own bodies. FUCK the courts! When they violate the Constitution my written guarantee, they are as criminal as a criminal can be and as corrupt as corruption can be. I don’t need right-wing and left-wing ideologues deciding my rights and freedoms for me, with politically biased opinions, only judges loyal to the strict construction of my written guarantee, the Constitution are valid in my world.

They are going to ultimately decide what is or isn't "constitutional" and law of the land. Most of the time, they are going to sharply disagree on those interpretations, and both sides will release an opinion, and it will articulate specific points and understandings of their constitutional interpretations

What the judges today are going to decide isn’t necessarily the “constitutionality” or lack thereof of anything, what they do decide is what they wish to be “legal” or “illegal” and to hell with the Constitution. They often legalize crime and illegalize freedom.

Now you are free to disagree with their ruling. You can maintain that it's not constitutional, and you can assemble, petition for redress.

Redress to WHO? The left-wing and right-wing of corrupt government and it’s kangaroo court? Funny fellow! The only way for redress is to throw the bastards out of government and replace them with people loyal to the Constitution. That fact should be perfectly clear to any honest and thinking folk.

The bottom line is, not everyone agrees with your opinion.

That’s not the “bottom line” that’s your “ONLY” line and it’s a tiresome and pathetic line and a fraudulent and pathetic argument. It’s mindless babble!!!

 

[Timshel]

Again, I gave a perfect example, your liberal activism for gay marriage! We've been over the "discrimination" argument, no one is being discriminated against. It does not matter if you are gay or straight, you can't marry same sex partners unless your state has passed a law allowing it. No homosexual is being denied a traditional marriage licence. Homosexuals are also not prohibited from living together, engaging in homosexual activity, or calling their arrangement whatever they please. There are also legal instruments available to remedy any personal estate or communal property issue, if such a thing is desired by any two adult parties.

It's just absolutely NOT discrimination, and if you want to argue that it is "invidious discrimination" then it's just as "invidious discriminatory" to deny the same right or freedom to ANY sexual proclivity. Of course, you've demonstrated your ability to dance back to the comfortable constraints of moral determination there, where you get to define where our moral boundaries are. And this is the whole problem with your view, it shape-shifts and morphs into whatever you need it to be, words change in definition, things change in meaning, depending on the specific point you need to make at any given time. If that is to be our 'standard' then nothing means anything, we can change and alter traditional understanding and meanings as we please, and make the law say whatever we need for it to say to fit our agenda.

A TRUE Libertarian might argue that government doesn't have ANY place in establishing the legitimacy of ANY marriage, or telling ANY person what they must accept as marriage. This would mean you don't push for gay marriage OR DOMA, you don't believe either is a valid government interest. But here, we see you are an ardent supporter of the liberal social agenda, and you are simply hiding behind "libertarianism" in order to conceal your motives. My personal view is as "libertarian" as yours, I think this matter should be left to THE PEOPLE and the STATE, and decided at the ballot box. I have never pushed for society to accept what I personally believe, I have always accepted that society should be free to make this determination on its own, regardless of what my personal beliefs are.

The court may soon take care of the state laws and my argument is that they should.

A woman has the right to marry a woman just as a man does and can't be denied that right simply because the state desires to discriminate against homosexuality.

Nothing has shape shifted about my argument. You are a moron that does not understand the legal precedent or even make an honest effort to do so. Anyone that disagrees is part of some sort of conspiracy in your fucked up little world. You'd spew hate like Phelps if the political climate were more supportive.

Laws that enter into the area where they may interfere with rights of people based on class have to serve a valid state interest. The interest can't simply be promoting class division.

My position is in line with the party platform and the libertarian philosophy. So long as the state is in the business of licensing marriages it can not be permitted to practice invidious discrimination. So long as the state is the final arbiter in the dissolution of marriages it can not be allowed to practice invidious discrimination.

Some libertarians consider their sci fi fantasies and work backwards. That's stupid. Others are not libertarian at all. They are those that consistently vote Republican, lie about their views and are nothing but neo confederate fascists, like you. My guess is the only ones that would tolerate a piece of shit like you are in the latter group.

 

[evince]

the right looks pretty fractured huh

 

[evince]

heres is something for you guys on the right to think about.

You are a fractured party.

Your the minority party in our government right now.


Dont expect the minority of your minority party to be the one getting their way in a Democratic country