8 Facts That Prove the Tea Party Is Ignorant of the U.S. Constitution

[Alias]

So if not enumerated in the Constitution Congress doesn't have the power to do it. What about rights? All those have to be enumerated also?

The Constitution speaks to the power and authority of the govt. We don't get our rights from govt.

 

[poet]

Your entire life has been a waste of time.

And how would you know that? You don't know me. Speculation, on your part, is more waste of time. When you post something of value or interest, I'll let you know.

 

[poet]

Contrived? No, I directly quoted the author of the general welfare clause in Federalist 41.

Read it again, pinhead....

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter....But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare?

Since you are playing the idiot fool here, how about kindly answering Madison's rhetorical questions? Why the hell would we have an open-ended clause in the Constitution which allowed Congress to do whatever they wanted under the guise of "general welfare?" If "general welfare" was supposed to be interpreted to mean what you have claimed, there would literally not be any need for the rest of the Constitution. The general welfare clause would have pretty much covered anything and everything, nothing else would be needed. You may want to argue, what about our other rights? Well, if Congress had the unfettered power to dictate "general welfare" and define what it is, then they could simply override anything else written in the Constitution, by claiming it was for our general welfare. But the truth is, the general welfare clause is specific and enumerated in the paragraphs to follow the clause. This is not contrived, it is straight from the mouth of the man who wrote the general welfare clause, I think he is more qualified than you to tell us what it means.

You're not well. You haven't been for a long time. Seek therapy.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

In this one paragraph you kill ANY guise of Constitutional knowledge. Where exactly in

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

does it protect the right to life? Before you start trying to blather on about whatever convoluted logic you used to make this incredibly ignorant statement let me say for the record the first amendment is not about the right to life. Try again oh sage one.

*SIGH*.... Okay, let's be a fucking moron, shall we? The Declaration, on which the basis for a Constitution is provided, clearly defines life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as God-given rights which can't be taken away. The entire Bill of Rights and Constitution is a statement for the protection of life. If you want to get nit-picky, the 4th Amendment can be specifically applied on behalf of the fetus.

Aside from the fact that, if you abort someone without their expressed permission, you have effectively deprived them of freedom of speech, you have also deprived them of due process and a host of other rights endowed by the Creator. Oh, and Sochead, if you are going to run around tediously correcting every little error you see, it might be wise to note, when using 16th century parlance, it is "O' sage one" and not "OH sage one!" ...Now go and fucketh thy self!

 

[poet]

The Constitution speaks to the power and authority of the govt. We don't get our rights from govt.

Really? And where do we derive them from? God? And if so, how can you or anyone deprive another of them? Meaning women, to govern their own bodies, the right of gays to marry, and/or the civil rights of non-whites? Where are you saying we our rights from?

 

[Alias]

And how would you know that? You don't know me. Speculation, on your part, is more waste of time. When you post something of value or interest, I'll let you know.

Yes, I do know you. I know you by your posts.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So if not enumerated in the Constitution Congress doesn't have the power to do it. What about rights? All those have to be enumerated also?

And those rights ARE enumerated and specified. The right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness are not granted specifically in the Constitution, because it has already been established as a basis for writing a Constitution, that certain rights are endowed and unalienable.

 

[Alias]

And those rights ARE enumerated and specified. The right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness are not granted specifically in the Constitution, because it has already been established as a basis for writing a Constitution, that certain rights are endowed and unalienable.

Exactly. The Constitution tells us of the limits of govt.

 

[Socrtease]

Like I said, stop with the convoluted logic. That description above would get you laughed out of a Constitutional Law class at the most conservative Law School. First off the Constitution is NOT based on the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was a second try at governance after the Articles of Confederation failed. The DoI was a divorce document intended for George the III and no one else. When learning the Constitution professors give hardly a passing reference to the DoI. The DoI has no legal power in the US. You cannot sue for loss of life liberty or happiness in any court in the US based on the DoI.

Section 1 of the 14th amendment spells out at the very beginning who is protected,"All persons born or naturalized in the United States", the fetus is neither. Your own state couldn't get a majority to agree that a fetus is a protected person from the moment of conception.

You need to stick to subjects you KNOW. The Constitution of the United States is NOT one of those subjects.

 

[poet]

Like I said, stop with the convoluted logic. That description above would get you laughed out of a Constitutional Law class at the most conservative Law School. First off the Constitution is NOT based on the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was a second try at governance after the Articles of Confederation failed. The DoI was a divorce document intended for George the III and no one else. When learning the Constitution professors give hardly a passing reference to the DoI. The DoI has no legal power in the US. You cannot sue for loss of life liberty or happiness in any court in the US based on the DoI.

Section 1 of the 14th amendment spells out at the very beginning who is protected,"All persons born or naturalized in the United States", the fetus is neither. Your own state couldn't get a majority to agree that a fetus is a protected person from the moment of conception.

You need to stick to subjects you KNOW. The Constitution of the United States is NOT one of those subjects.

Bravo. Kudos.

 

[Socrtease]

And those rights ARE enumerated and specified. The right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness are not granted specifically in the Constitution, because it has already been established as a basis for writing a Constitution, that certain rights are endowed and unalienable.

So then how do you deal with this language directly from the constitution?

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

The founders said we have rights not enumerated. Matter of fact, if not for the 9th Amendment, the constitution likely would not have passed. Many of the founders were afraid of people such as you. Those who would say that since the right was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution it did not exist.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So then how do you deal with this language directly from the constitution? "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The founders said we have rights not enumerated. Matter of fact, if not for the 9th Amendment, the constitution likely would not have passed. Many of the founders were afraid of people such as you. Those who would say that since the right was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution it did not exist.

Dixie doesn't admit the existence of 1/3, do you expect him to understand constitutional matters?

 

[poet]

Yes, I do know you. I know you by your posts.

You wrote:

Originally Posted by Alias

Your entire life has been a waste of time.



You couldn't possibly know anything of my entire life. And certainly none of my life, based on my posts and my postings, other than what I've intimated about myself. That is a sliver of who and what I am. You don't know me. Unequivocally. Absolutely. Refrain from making yourself appear more foolish than you actually are. Or not.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Really? And where do we derive them from? God? And if so, how can you or anyone deprive another of them? Meaning women, to govern their own bodies, the right of gays to marry, and/or the civil rights of non-whites? Where are you saying we our rights from?

Yes, we derive our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness from God, or our Creator. The Constitution lays out specifics, but all of our rights are subject to the rights of others. Women do have the right to govern their own body, but a fetus is a living human being, and if recognized by the courts as such, must be given the rights afforded in the Constitution. The woman's right to govern her own body does not supersede the right of the fetus to live, or nullify its freedom of speech rights, or it's rights against illegal search and seizure. At present, the court interpretation does not recognize the fetus as a human being or citizen, that is the ONLY reason abortion is legal.

Gays do not have a right to marry. Homosexuality is a sexual lifestyle, and there is no guarantee in the Constitution, that sexual lifestyle is allowed special exceptions. Marriage is the union of a male and female partner, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Marital unions between two males or two females, is not allowed for heterosexual or homosexual couples, because this is not the definition of marriage.

It is a complete fraudulent misnomer that 'gay marriage' is akin to a civil rights violation. You are abandoning logic and relying on emotion, and there is no further basis for discussion. You have become as much of a closed-minded bigot as those you despise the most.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Yes, we derive our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness from God, or our Creator. The Constitution lays out specifics, but all of our rights are subject to the rights of others. Women do have the right to govern their own body, but a fetus is a living human being, and if recognized by the courts as such, must be given the rights afforded in the Constitution. The woman's right to govern her own body does not supersede the right of the fetus to live, or nullify its freedom of speech rights, or it's rights against illegal search and seizure. At present, the court interpretation does not recognize the fetus as a human being or citizen, that is the ONLY reason abortion is legal.

Gays do not have a right to marry. Homosexuality is a sexual lifestyle, and there is no guarantee in the Constitution, that sexual lifestyle is allowed special exceptions. Marriage is the union of a male and female partner, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Marital unions between two males or two females, is not allowed for heterosexual or homosexual couples, because this is not the definition of marriage. It is a complete fraudulent misnomer that 'gay marriage' is akin to a civil rights violation. You are abandoning logic and relying on emotion, and there is no further basis for discussion. You have become as much of a closed-minded bigot as those you despise the most.

Is this the usual "I'm done with you" whine that doublewide Dixie utters when he's beaten in an argument?

 

[Alias]

Like I said, stop with the convoluted logic. That description above would get you laughed out of a Constitutional Law class at the most conservative Law School. First off the Constitution is NOT based on the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was a second try at governance after the Articles of Confederation failed. The DoI was a divorce document intended for George the III and no one else. When learning the Constitution professors give hardly a passing reference to the DoI. The DoI has no legal power in the US. You cannot sue for loss of life liberty or happiness in any court in the US based on the DoI.

Section 1 of the 14th amendment spells out at the very beginning who is protected,"All persons born or naturalized in the United States", the fetus is neither. Your own state couldn't get a majority to agree that a fetus is a protected person from the moment of conception.

You need to stick to subjects you KNOW. The Constitution of the United States is NOT one of those subjects.

It comes down to definitions. That's always where it ends up in la la land. The left needs to be the ones who determine when life begins or ends. No thanks. We need to keep govt out of that area.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Like I said, stop with the convoluted logic. That description above would get you laughed out of a Constitutional Law class at the most conservative Law School. First off the Constitution is NOT based on the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was a second try at governance after the Articles of Confederation failed. The DoI was a divorce document intended for George the III and no one else. When learning the Constitution professors give hardly a passing reference to the DoI. The DoI has no legal power in the US. You cannot sue for loss of life liberty or happiness in any court in the US based on the DoI.

Section 1 of the 14th amendment spells out at the very beginning who is protected,"All persons born or naturalized in the United States", the fetus is neither. Your own state couldn't get a majority to agree that a fetus is a protected person from the moment of conception.

You need to stick to subjects you KNOW. The Constitution of the United States is NOT one of those subjects.

First of all, the Constitution could have never existed without the Declaration. Why would the Bill of Rights or the Constitution be required to enumerate specific rights that are given to us by our Creator, which can't be alienated? That doesn't even make rational sense to retarded people, man! Before we even dreamed of a Constitution, the fact that our right to live, our right to be free, and our right to pursue our dreams, are something that is ENDOWED TO US BY THE CREATOR! There is no Constitutional document needed for this, that is what INALIENABLE means, moron!

As for your pro-abortion arguments, I admit that it under the current interpretations of the Court, abortion is legal and constitutional. If you expect me to argue to the contrary, you are to be disappointed, because this can't be argued, it is a fact. All I can offer is, the Court has often been wrong and its decisions overturned. But for now, abortion is constitutional and legal.

 

[poet]

Yes, we derive our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness from God, or our Creator. The Constitution lays out specifics, but all of our rights are subject to the rights of others. Women do have the right to govern their own body, but a fetus is a living human being, and if recognized by the courts as such, must be given the rights afforded in the Constitution. The woman's right to govern her own body does not supersede the right of the fetus to live, or nullify its freedom of speech rights, or it's rights against illegal search and seizure. At present, the court interpretation does not recognize the fetus as a human being or citizen, that is the ONLY reason abortion is legal.

Gays do not have a right to marry. Homosexuality is a sexual lifestyle, and there is no guarantee in the Constitution, that sexual lifestyle is allowed special exceptions. Marriage is the union of a male and female partner, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Marital unions between two males or two females, is not allowed for heterosexual or homosexual couples, because this is not the definition of marriage.

It is a complete fraudulent misnomer that 'gay marriage' is akin to a civil rights violation. You are abandoning logic and relying on emotion, and there is no further basis for discussion. You have become as much of a closed-minded bigot as those you despise the most.

Bull Shit. A fetus has not been recognized as a living human being...and therein lies the rub. A fetus belongs to a woman as a content of her body...and the law is predicate upon viability outside of the womb. Like it or fucking not.


And I hardly need a lecture from you on the tenets of homosexuality. It is no more a lifestyle than heterosexuality is. That is a talking point and a further attempt to discriminate against gays by deeming their sexual orientation, which is intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, as a "style of life", much like "the lifestyles of the rich and famous". Who the fuck are you to dictate policy? And please stop espousing your narrow-minded views. I, along with millions of others see things much differently than you. You're free to believe that nonsense.
But don't expect me, or others to subscribe to it.
Become? A close minded bigot? I'm not suggesting freedom be inhibited...you are. Soon, you and others like you, will "die off", and more, "clear-thinking", progressive-minded individuals will agree with folks who think like me. It's inevitable. Best you get into some acceptance. Or not.

 

[Alias]

Bull Shit. A fetus has not been recognized as a living human being...and therein lies the rub. A fetus belongs to a woman as a content of her body...and the law is predicate upon viability outside of the womb. Like it or fucking not.


And I hardly need a lecture from you on the tenets of homosexuality. It is no more a lifestyle than heterosexuality is. That is a talking point and a further attempt to discriminate against gays by deeming their sexual orientation, which is intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, as a "style of life", much like "the lifestyles of the rich and famous". Who the fuck are you to dictate policy? And please stop espousing your narrow-minded views. I, along with millions of others see things much differently than you. You're free to believe that nonsense.
But don't expect me, or others to subscribe to it.
Become? A close minded bigot? I'm not suggesting freedom be inhibited...you are. Soon, you and others like you, will "die off", and more, "clear-thinking", progressive-minded individuals will agree with folks who think like me. It's inevitable. Best you get into some acceptance. Or not.

Do YOU believe a fetus is a living human being?

 

[zappasguitar]

Fine. Tell us why it's BS.

Because it came from Dixie.