AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

ican,

No one reads your posts. Go away. Find something blunt to play with.

Good question to ask you, parados.

Oh? Can you show me where it lists those as crimes in the US Constitution?
We should be looking at the text, should we not ican? So show us specifically where the items on your list are crimes. If you can't do that then you are full of ****.

Ok.. I will admit I hate the US Constitution when you show me where it specifically refers to taxation as theft. If you can't do such a thing, then will you admit that ican hates the Constitution?

Parados, quit being silly. Ican does not hate the constitution. He simply has a conservative view in regard to its interpretation, as do all conservatives. Liberals like yourself have historically believed it is a living breathing document that can be twisted or interpreted to mean what you want it to mean. In regard to spending on the general welfare, it seems like liberals think that any money spent on anything qualifies, and that is one big reason why this country has almost been bankrupted. We will not agree on this issue here by throwing insults at each other, but suffice it to say that as a solid conservative, I am hoping for a complete election landslide this fall to try to get this country headed back toward some degree of fiscal and constitutional sanity again.

okie wrote:

Gezuz, okie, can't you use a bigger brush?

I cant speak for all conseratives (even though you think you can) but this conservative thinks the exact opposite.
My view is that unless there is a clause in the Constitution giving the govt the right to control something, then the govt cannot control it and has no say over it.

The only thing I want to control is my own life, and I want the govt to stay out of it.

There is no address made to technology in all this prattle. The interesting thing is I would contend that the true liberal is very rare because the true liberal wouldn't want to use a great deal of energy wasting technology.

But, that observation aside, one of the problems with people who represent themselves as strict constructionists always overlook the effect technology has on how we think about ourselves and our situations and the Constitutional demands of technological changes.

I underlined the word represent because few of those who chant strict construction . . . how many of you, esp. okie and ican, understand what that phrase means, you stricties . . .really understand the impact of technology upon society.

Think of the birth control pill.

Women expect to be able to control their own fertility. But far too many women . . . and there are many on these boards (even conservatives) who would say that the wrong women are controlling their fertility . . .are ignoring what most liberals saw as the wisdom of the late 60s and early 70s. Zero Population Growth.

How many here have considered that one of the mediate (as opposed to immediate) causes of the housing bubble was the Baby Boom.

Another mediate cause was the Pill.

How can one be a strict constructionist without ignoring technology?

Furthermore, the contradiction is that not even those strange people in the southwest who practice polygamy will do with technology in the home. I would suggest that their households use more electricity less wisely than the some diehard crunchy folks who vote the Green Party and bicycle to work.

You haven't yet answered my question! With which of the following claims do you agree and with which do you disagree? Why?

POWERS THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS OR DELEGATES:
The Constitution of the USA specifies both the powers it grants or delegates to the federal government, and some of the powers it specifies are not delegated to the federal government. Any power exercised by the federal government that the Constitution has not delegated to the federal government, or has specified not delegated to the federal government, is a power that is unlawful for the federal government to exercise.

The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to take private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned their property, and give their property to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned that property.

The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to transfer wealth from those who earned it to those who did not earn it.

The Constitution can only be lawfully changed by amending it according to the Constitution’s Article V. The Constitution cannot be lawfully changed by judicial, executive, or congressional decisions.

The fact that previous presidents have transferred wealth and the Supreme Court has not declared transfers of wealth unlawful, is not justification for the federal government continuing to transfer wealth.

I base these conclusions on the 5th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and on the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government delegated the power to transfer wealth from those who earned it to those who did not earn it.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment X
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.

You haven't yet answered my question! With which of the following claims do you agree and with which do you disagree? Why?

PRESIDENT BARACH OBAMA HAS UNLAWFULLY:
http://www.altavista.com/web/results?fr=altavista&itag=ody&q=REASONS+FOR+IMPEACHING+BARACK+OBAMA+&kgs=0&kls=0
http://www.amorian.org/2009/09/06/the-big-list-of-reasons-to-impeach-barack-obama/
(1) taken private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned it, and given it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

(2) exercised the authority of his office to take private property for public use in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees to the People that “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,” and without “due process of law.”

(3) interfered with the management of private companies for the purpose of achieving government control of them, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

(4) interfered with the economic rights of the people by imposing unreasonable impairments in the fulfillment of their intended contractual obligations, and their ability to enter into such contracts.

(5) attempted to change our fundamental economic system from one governed by the rule of law to one governed by presidential dictate.

(6) signed an unconstitutional health care bill that is not authorized by any power of Congress enumerated in the Constitution, not even by a very expansive reading of the power to regulate commerce among the several states.

(7) signed an unconstitutional health care bill that violates the Tenth Amendment by requiring state governments to force their citizens to purchase medical insurance they do not want to purchase.

(8) signed an unconstitutional health care bill that violates the Ninth Amendment by forcing state governments to force their citizens to be denied rights that are retained by the people.

(9) used public money to purchase private companies.

(10) given our public money to a foreign state to finance their state-run oil company while refusing to allow us to develop our own oil resources.

(11) violated the balance of powers among the Congress, the Judiciary, and the Presidency by appointing, without congressional approval, so called Czars with far reaching powers who are accountable to no one but himself.

(12) funded his election campaign with foreign contributions.

(13) permitted the justice department to implement a policy to not prosecute any civil rights or voting rights violations if perpetrated by a black or blacks against a white or whites.

Perhaps Leftist Liberals do not like answering questions, because they do not know why they believe what they say they believe. Perhaps, Leftist Liberals do not like answering questions, because they do not actually believe what they say they believe!

So,.. let me ask you again Okie.. WHERE in the US Constitution does it state that taxation is theft?

Unless you can show me where it exists, then ican is twisting the meaning of the document and is either 1. a liberal or 2. proof that your argument is BS because conservatives twist the meaning.

Ican,

You have yet to show us where the US Constitution calls taxation theft.

They always twist meanings; look at the controversy surrounding the community center/mosque in NYC. The crisis happened at ground zero, but they don't want Muslims to build their community center two blocks away, because...._______. Many conservatives still call it ground zero, which most people with any brain knows it isn't. They love to stretch their meaning to win political points, but sadly lacks any knowledge about facts or the US Constitution.

The biggest problem these kind of events create is the simple fact that democrats fall into this trap without thinking. They all use emotion and feelings, not facts or equal rights under our laws.

What do you think are "the Constitutional demands of technological changes"?

I think the following are the Constitution's "strict constructionists" relevant rules--especially the last two--regarding technology changes:

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Amendment I
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.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

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

Amendment X
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.

It's funny that you should mention that one ican. So you think the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, right?

Parados, you forgot the word "unreasonable." I think Bush was entirely and very reasonable in any scrutiny of phone calls to suspected terorrist contacts overseas. In contrast, FDR was highly unreasonable when he rounded up Americans during World War II and imprisoned them in concentration camps around the U.S. for no other reason than their national heritage. I believe FDR could have been, and perhaps should have been impeached for it.

So, if it is reasonable to listen to phone calls of one person then by the fact that the Constitution requires equal protection it means they could listen to ALL phone calls. Do you agree with the equal protection clause or not okie?

Parados, your logic leads to nonsense. Are you going to argue that because the police have a right to shoot a suspected burglar, the police can shoot anybody without probably cause? Or maybe you might argue that the police should not apprehend anyone for anything for any reason at all? I don't know, parados, you show no logic at all in your posts. Your opinions really get silly.

By the way, what do you think of FDR, was his actions 10 times worse than Bush, or was his of no consequence at all? Or based upon your logic, maybe FDR could have arrested every American citizen in the country and thrown us in camps?

Exactly okie. Arguing that it is reasonable to violate the rights of some is silly since doing so gives the power to violate the rights of all.