Yahoos claiming to be "Constitutional conservatives"

[renard_ruse]

Has anyone noticed these idiots who call up these talk shows claiming to be "Constitutional conservatives" mostly sound like they have IQs slightly higher than a block of wood and they just crawled out of some trailer park?

They sound like real Constitutional scholars.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claimed to be a constitutional scholar yet never knew the 9th Amendment existed or that the reason for the Constitution was a limitation on the powers of government over the people.

 

[Iceprincess12]

It's more head scratching when people complain about callers. Radio's, ipads, voices in your head...they all come with volume buttons now. Unless you enjoy feeling superior (probably) stop listening.






https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/87/1c/44/871c4445c353df3df2ab84ca4a830294.jpg

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The problem with "constitutional conservatism" is how vague it is, just like the Constitution itself in some ways. Like it or not, that leaves room for numbskulls like Michelle Bachmann to call herself a "Constitutional Conservative," when she's just Joe McCarthy in makeup and a dress.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claimed to be a constitutional scholar yet never knew the 9th Amendment existed or that the reason for the Constitution was a limitation on the powers of government over the people.

No, the reason for the Constitution was to create a government with powers over the people, because the Articles of Confederation government wasn't up to the job.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Has anyone noticed these idiots who call up these talk shows claiming to be "Constitutional conservatives" mostly sound like they have IQs slightly higher than a block of wood and they just crawled out of some trailer park?

Yes. Yes, I have. And yet they still somehow sound way smarter than social-reactionary paleocons like Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz, and you. Funny how that works.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

No, the reason for the Constitution was to create a government with powers over the people, because the Articles of Confederation government wasn't up to the job.

Yes and no. It was a delicate balance. The Framers wanted one powerful enough to work better than the Articles did, but one that wasn't so powerful that it would never get ratified or would actually endanger the liberties for which they fought.

 

[sr71plt]

I think by then they were more concerned with what they could get passed. They realized that more unified direction was required--that the liberties for which they fought were a might too much loose to support a nation. That particular tension is still with us.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claimed to be a constitutional scholar yet never knew the 9th Amendment existed or that the reason for the Constitution was a limitation on the powers of government over the people.

Obama claims to b a Constitutional scholar but disregards the part about how the 2/3 vote of the Senate for foreign treaties.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Obama claims to b a Constitutional scholar but disregards the part about how the 2/3 vote of the Senate for foreign treaties.

Presidents claim inherent powers to conclude executive agreements under Article II of the Constitution. U.S. law stipulates that an agreement is only viewed as a treaty once it has been made with "the advice and consent of the Senate," a study by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service noted.

But administrations often choose to conclude deals with foreign states that don't satisfy that requirement. Such an "executive agreement" is still considered a treaty that is binding under international law, but does not reach the same standard under U.S. law, according to the study.

Nonbinding agreements with China and Russia

Examples of "nonbinding" documents include a U.S.-Russia to remove Syria's stocks of chemical weapons and the Proliferation Security Initiative to stop the global shipment of the weapons of mass destruction components.

Biden argued Monday that this practice is as old as the United States itself.

"Under presidents of both parties, such major shifts in American foreign policy as diplomatic recognition of the People's Republic of China, the resolution of the Iran hostage crisis, and the conclusion of the Vietnam War were all conducted without congressional approval," he said in his statement opposing the GOP letter.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-treaty-obama-administration/index.html

 

[dan_c00000]

The problem with "constitutional conservatism" is how vague it is, just like the Constitution itself in some ways. Like it or not, that leaves room for numbskulls like Michelle Bachmann to call herself a "Constitutional Conservative," when she's just Joe McCarthy in makeup and a dress.

Constitutional conservatives usually have not read the constitution much less know what to "conserve" about it. In fact, most constitutional conservatives believe this to be an actual photograph from the period.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

They rail about the 10th Amendment...until they need a new federal program that they just have to have.....a bit like if Dave Ramsey suddenly went on a massive spending splurge because, like OMG, these cowboy boots are awesome!



Amazing how fast the 10th Amendment became irrelevant when they wanted to ban partial-birth abortion or same-sex marriage....or abortion after 20 weeks....nationally! (Yes, Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, I'm looking at YOU!)

 

[dan_c00000]

The Constitution says what it says...until it doesn't. In Scalia's case he was such a "constitutional conservative" he literally invented a new right because...well, I'm just going to assume Madison told him to.

Don't forget that the NRA was giving money to folks supporting this completely invented "right".

 

[someoneyouknow]

The Constitution says what it says...until it doesn't. In Scalia's case he was such a "constitutional conservative" he literally invented a new right because...well, I'm just going to assume Madison told him to.

Don't forget that the NRA was giving money to folks supporting this completely invented "right".

No, not really. If you look at the history of the Amendment and how it was implemented, it was understood, and practiced, that citizens would be allowed to own/have firearms for two reasons:

1) in time of war or insurrection they could be called upon as the militia and come to the defense of the country. Witness Washington's use of militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

This was further emphasized by Madison and others, particularly in The Federalist Papers, where it was explained how the militia (i.e. citizens) could be used to repel or at least slow the advance of an invading force long enough for the (small) standing army to come to the battle.

The Militia Act of 1792 put this into effect by requiring those with arms to register with the government and attend regular drill sessions.

2) the second reason was more pragmatic. The Founding Fathers believed allowing citizens to have weapons would allow them to protect themselves from an overzealous government.

All the FF had witnessed or lived through the abuse of power under the Crown which wielded the sole large force of men under arms. By having the citizens armed it was believed the government would be more reluctant and even dissuaded from attacking its own people or using force to get its way. It was another form of checks and balances.

Madison laid out this argument in The Federalist Papers where he calculated the number of men in a standing army for a given size country compared to the number of citizens who had arms. The ratio was heavily skewed in favor of citizens.

If you read the history of the Amendment the debate actually turned on whether to have a standing army at all, fearing a repeat of the situation in England. Thus was born the compromise of having citizens own weapons both as a means to protect the country and protect themselves from the government.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

If anything, the Miller decision was the aberrant one, prompted by the fresh memories of the Prohibition Era and men like John Dillinger, Al Capone, etc. Plus, there was a general trend toward more aggressive government policies, some better (Social Security) and some not so good (National Firearms Act) that followed the Depression with the New Deal.