Arizona can bite my Chalupa!

I am ashamed of my home state.

How true! They love their images of the FF and the Constitution, not those things as they actually were and are.

No, Bill does not. Conservatives are the right wing. Come on, pretending they are not does not garner you any respect.

No. That is false and nonsense.
We care about issues of substance.





David

The right wing MEANS conservatives.



Did anyone DO that ??





David

Sorry but the right wingers/tea party members/fox network lovers are not for the US Constitution and wish to go back to the days of the Articles of Confederation.

If you do not like the 14 amendment let find a back door way for the states to nullify it by not honoring requests for birth records unless you can prove that the person parents did not enter the country illegally.

If you do not like the federal government immigrations laws or their enforcement efforts let once more bypass the Constitution and the Federal government and have the states try to seized this power from the Federal government.

Claiming on the one hand to love the Constitution and the founding fathers who set it up and who abandoned the Articles of Confederation and on the other hand who wish to gut that very Constitution and return powers to the states.

WHAT THE HELL is going on, Bill??
I am supposed to be securely on your IGNORE list,
so that I can say anything that I want
without u finding out about it!!??!!

U PROMISED to have me on that IGNORE list.

I thought I was SAFE.
U have BETRAYED ME. I had all my FAITH in u, Bill.

How coud u stoop so low ?



I did not attack the 14th Amendment on A2K.
I don 't understand Y u suggest that I "do not like the 14th amendment".





I don 't see how the 14th Amendment has anything to do with Arizona 's anti-illegal alien law.




I do not understand your reasoning.
U r probably a very fine Constitutional lawyer, but I fail to see any connection
with the Arizona law in question.



Arizona 's law does not divest the federal government of jurisdiction, as u imply, Counsellor.





David

Once more when I see an ignore message I sometime click on it.

You are still firmly on my ignore list however.

THAT 'S hitting below the belt, Bill.
U are not supposed to know what I say !

I had a conversation with a working journalist today who said exactly the same thing about the right and their alleged love of the Constitution.

Then what does this mean?

Bill, I was only having some fun with u.
I was playing head games with u, something that I 've done all my life.

I don 't really think that u r a bad guy, and I was never really mad at u.

U r OK in my book, but I wish that u 'd try to be more careful
in your grammar. Some of your posts have indicated that u r
smart enuf to do it correctly, if u try. I hope that u will.

I hope that I did not hurt your feelings in my rants.





David

Plain, please be more careful
in your use of the quote function.
U have attributed to Bill,
some of MY posted text, in addition to his.




Let me try to explain it this way, using an example:
suppose that someone is scrupulously careful to be immaculately clean.
He loves being clean; he TELLS people that he loves being clean,
and he identifies himself as being a CLEAN person.

Subsequently, there comes a time when he is less clean.
He is then no longer a clean person; i.e., EITHER, he is, OR he is NOT a clean person.

If he stops being a clean person,
then he becomes an ex-clean person.

This is also true of conservatives:
so long as thay do NOT deviate from the Constitution, remaining orthodox in regard thereto,
thay remain conservatives.

IF there comes a time when thay DO deviate
from the Constitution, then thay become ex-conservatives.

Have I succeeded in getting my point across, Plain ?

If u have any questions, I 'll be happy to reply to them.





David

No, I just highlighted the entire post in question in which it looked like you were denying that conservatives were on the right. It was a very murky reply.

I totally disagree with your stands on the Constitution and on what you call deviance.

If we were to live totally within the scope of the FFs we would need to give up communications and indoor plumbing and assume many things we rejected.

Now, the Constitution does not dictate one be without a flush toilet but there is something retro and unrealistic about your interpretation.

In my mind, there is a one-to-one correspondence between "T.J.," the man who is the focus of this article and gun toting:

SATURDAY, JUL 17, 2010 14:50 ET
Neo-Nazi Minuteman hunts Arizona immigrants
Jason "J.T." Ready identifies with the National Socialist Movement, alerts authorities to border crossings
BY MICHELLE PRICE, ASSOCIATED PRESS
Minutemen groups, a surge in Border Patrol agents, and a tough new immigration law aren't enough for a reputed neo-Nazi who's now leading a militia in the Arizona desert.

Jason "J.T." Ready is taking matters into his own hands, declaring war on "narco-terrorists" and keeping an eye out for illegal immigrants. So far, he says his patrols have only found a few border crossers who were given water and handed over to the Border Patrol. Once, they also found a decaying body in a wash, and alerted authorities.

But local law enforcement are nervous given that Ready's group is heavily armed and identifies with the National Socialist Movement, an organization that believes only non-Jewish, white heterosexuals should be American citizens and that everyone who isn't white should leave the country "peacefully or by force."

"We're not going to sit around and wait for the government anymore," Ready said. "This is what our founding fathers did."

An escalation of civilian border watches have taken root in Arizona in recent years, including the Minutemen movement. Various groups patrol the desert on foot, horseback and in airplanes and report suspicious activity to the Border Patrol, and generally, they have not caused problems for law enforcement.

But Ready, a 37-year-old ex-Marine, is different. He and his friends are outfitted with military fatigues, body armor and gas masks, and carry assault rifles. Ready takes offense at the term "neo-Nazi," but admits he identifies with the National Socialist Movement.

"These are explicit Nazis," said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project. "These are people who wear swastikas on their sleeves."

Ready is a reflection of the anger over illegal immigration in Arizona. Gov. Jan Brewer signed a controversial new immigration law in April, which requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

But Brewer hasn't done enough, Ready said, and he's not satisfied with President Barack Obama's decision to beef up security at the border.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said there haven't been any incidents with the group as they patrol his jurisdiction, which includes several busy immigrant smuggling corridors. But Babeu is concerned because an untrained group acting without the authority of the law could cause "extreme problems," and put themselves and others in danger.

"I'm not inviting them. And in fact, I'd rather they not come," Babeu said. "Especially those who espouse hatred or bigotry such as his."

Law enforcement officials said patrols like Ready's could undercut the work of the thousands of officers on duty every day across the border, especially if they try to enforce the law themselves in carrying out vigilante justice.

Ready said his group has been patrolling in the desert about 50 miles south of Phoenix, in an area where a Pinal County Sheriff's deputy reported he was shot by drug smugglers in April.

Bureau of Land Management rangers met Ready's group during one patrol, and they weren't violating any laws or looking for a confrontation, said spokesman Dennis Godfrey.

The patrols have been occurring on public land, and militia members have no real restrictions on their weaponry because of Arizona's loose gun laws.

The militia is an outgrowth of border watch groups that have been part of the immigration debate in Arizona. Patrols in the Arizona desert by Minutemen organizations brought national attention to illegal immigration in 2004 and 2005.

Such groups continue to operate in Arizona, and law enforcement officials generally don't take issue with them as long as they don't take matters into their own hands.

Border Patrol spokesman Omar Candelaria said the agency appreciates the extra eyes and ears but they would prefer actual law enforcement be left to professionals.

Former Minutemen leader Al Garza recently created the Patriot's Coalition, which uses scouts and search-and-rescue teams to alert the Border Patrol and provide first aid to illegal immigrants.

Depending on the availability of volunteers and the scouts' evidence of border crossers, patrols can vary from several times a week to once a month, Garza said. The operation is about 500 people, and includes a neighborhood watch program, legislative advisers and a horseback patrol, he said.

Technology, rather than manpower, is the focus of Glenn Spencer's American Border Patrol. The group is based at his ranch near the border. The five-man operation flies three small airplanes to ensure that the Border Patrol is present and visible along the international line.

Spencer also uses Internet-controlled cameras and works with a group called Border Invasion Pics, which posts photos of people they suspect are crossing illegally.

"Sitting out there with a bunch of volunteers looking for people is generally a tremendous waste of people and time," Spencer said. "And it's also dangerous."

Ready said he's planning patrols throughout the summer.

"If they don't want my people out there, then there's an easy way to send us home: Secure the border," he said. "We'll put our guns back on the shelf, and that'll be the end of that."

Sorry from the very beginnings or even before the beginning what the Constitution allow in terms of government powers had always been question beginning with the Jefferson/Hamilton fights over the matter

That why we have a Supreme Court and I see no reason to assume that the Jefferson side of the issue of government power should carry more weight then the Hamilton side of the issue or be declared more orthodox.

In fact Jefferson cheerfully greatly increased the power of the Federal government during his term of office.

So to sum up being orthodox in terms of the meanings of the Constitution is in the eyes and the minds of the beholders and nowhere else.

Nested quotes function like quotation marks, being captioned that "SOMEONE wrote:"



Conservatives (supporters of the French Monarchy of Louis XVI)
sat on the right side of its parliament. The King 's opponents,
who DEVIATED from belief in monarchy, sat on the left.



I will try to unmerk it; I 'm not giving up.


Let me approach it this way:
What is your understanding of a liberal interpretation of a contract?

If someone fully, completely and devotedly accepts the philosophy
of e.g., Adam Smith, then he is a conservative thereof, i.e.: he is ORTHODOX.

If someone else studies that body of thought and he accepts
e.g. 80% of it, then he is a liberal practitioner thereof,
in that he has deviated away from 20% of it.

Another student thereof who accepts only 70% of the ideas
of that body of thought is MORE liberal, in his practice thereof,
whereas yet another student who rejects ALL of it,
is RADICAL (from the "root")




That is not wise, and it is uncalled for, for us to adopt that style of life.
There is no reason for us to do that; we agree, Plain.






To be unvarying from the principles thereof, e.g. liberty and Individualism is retro; I like it.





David

The Founders made compromises among themselves
as to what is agreed and then thay submitted
their work product to the States, for ratification.
The Constitution was rejected in the Most important State: Virginia,
but after negotiation, it was accepted with the understanding
that the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) woud be added.
The First Congress did so, faithful to the word of the Federalists.

True.

Your position is that all law is purely subjective?
or maybe only the Constitution ?