More evidence of Virginia's blueness...

Jarod said:
No, the checks and balances from the people come in to play when the legislature passes the law and the president signs it. They also come into play when the elected president appoints, and the Senate comfirms the Supreme Court Justice.
Click to expand...

I find it difficult to believe that the framers, along with the entire population that ratified it, would write a constitution that defines a limited government and then not provide themselves a final check upon that government should it ignore its limitations. do you?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then, like zappa, you have a poor understanding of our historical founding. is that what public education is doing now?
Click to expand...

I was not publically educated. I disagree, I personally believe I have a better understanding of history that you. I also believe that just because we disagree does not mean that one of us is less educated.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I find it difficult to believe that the framers, along with the entire population that ratified it, would write a constitution that defines a limited government and then not provide themselves a final check upon that government should it ignore its limitations. do you?
Click to expand...

are you saying that the people, through their elected representatives, cannot impeach supreme court justices?
 
Jarod said:
I was not publically educated. I disagree, I personally believe I have a better understanding of history that you. I also believe that just because we disagree does not mean that one of us is less educated.
Click to expand...

then please go back to all the times i've asked for historical documentation to prove your points.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
would the government ever use nuclear arms against us? the 2nd Amendment protects any weapon that the people would have used against them to be better gunned and manned than the government.
Click to expand...

so you believe that it is absolutely physically impossible for the government to ever use nuclear weapons against a violent civil insurrection?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I find it difficult to believe that the framers, along with the entire population that ratified it, would write a constitution that defines a limited government and then not provide themselves a final check upon that government should it ignore its limitations. do you?
Click to expand...

Your premise is flawed. The entire population did not ratify the Constitution.

That being said, the framers understood the tyranny a majority can impose upon a minority and wanted to protect individuals from the mob rule that pure majority rule can and does impose. This is why there are limits on the powers of the government that is subject to the whims of the mob. This is why Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, they are not subject to the pendulum of a fickle public. If they were elected or served at the will of an elected official they would be beholden to mob rule.
 
maineman said:
so you believe that it is absolutely physically impossible for the government to ever use nuclear weapons against a violent civil insurrection?
Click to expand...

physically impossible? no. but it would be political suicide to do so and cause near total revolt due to the devastating loss of innocent life.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
read the documents. they all clearly show that they wanted the people to maintain ultimate power.

we should, if we still had our full 2nd Amendment rights that hadn't been whittled away by tyrants and collectivists.
Click to expand...

Please show me what documents clearly show that "they" wanted the people to maintain ultimate power? If that were the case, why have a bill of rights, let the people via the elected officials make the rules. Heck with modern technology, we don't even need officials, we can just vote on the rules every few years.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
physically impossible? no. but it would be political suicide to do so and cause near total revolt due to the devastating loss of innocent life.
Click to expand...

so? do you believe that the people should be afforded the right to bear nuclear arms and is that right guaranteed under the 2nd?
 
Jarod said:
Your premise is flawed. The entire population did not ratify the Constitution.

That being said, the framers understood the tyranny a majority can impose upon a minority and wanted to protect individuals from the mob rule that pure majority rule can and does impose. This is why there are limits on the powers of the government that is subject to the whims of the mob. This is why Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, they are not subject to the pendulum of a fickle public. If they were elected or served at the will of an elected official they would be beholden to mob rule.
Click to expand...
then kindly explain how the nominations of justices are full of hyperbolic tales of national destruction due to political parties?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
did a partisan senate convict that president? no. although a partisan house certainly charged him for crimes that apparently were not really crimes.
Click to expand...

the point is... we CAN impeach presidents - and we did - and we can impeach justices.... that power is the constitutional check against judicial activism that goes beyond what the people can stomach.
 
Jarod said:
List them and Ill see what I can do.
Click to expand...

for startes, show the statements from any of the framers that defines 'shall not be infringed' as reasonable regulations, or that 'arms' were limited solely to the ones available at that time so as to exclude future technologies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top