We need a plan for Texas' elections.

[racrguy]

Got it. You don't believe in the Constitution, that's your issue not mine. Until it's replaced or amended, it's the Supreme Law of the Land.

Oh, no, don't get it backwards. I believe in the constitution as well. You just have a twisted view of it.

[Forever_frost]

Oh, no, don't get it backwards. I believe in the constitution as well. You just have a twisted view of it.

How do I have a twisted view of it when I'm reading it word for word?

[racrguy]

How do I have a twisted view of it when I'm reading it word for word?

That's the problem.

[Sean88gt]

That's the problem.

Not a fan of strict constitutionalism?

[Forever_frost]

The problem is I'm reading the Constitution as it's written? So I'm reading the law and the black and white language of the law and that's an issue? And you really do enjoy the exact protections of the 1st, 4th, 5th amendments don't you?

[racrguy]

Not a fan of strict constitutionalism?

Oh, I am. But he seems to think that there's no avenue for determining whether laws are constitutional, and how congress gets the power to do things that are deemed constitutional

The problem is I'm reading the Constitution as it's written? So I'm reading the law and the black and white language of the law and that's an issue?

But you aren't reading it in black and white.

[5.8mont]

That's the problem.

Im with frost, maybe you should read the federalist papers.

[racrguy]

Im with frost, maybe you should read the federalist papers.

lolz. I don't think you know anything about them, due to what you just said. He thinks the constitution is the end all be all, whereas the federalist papers expand more on the thoughts and intentions of the constitution.

[Forever_frost]

lolz. I don't think you know anything about them, due to what you just said. He thinks the constitution is the end all be all, whereas the federalist papers expand more on the thoughts and intentions of the constitution.

Actually, for the federal government, the Constitution IS the end all be all. First and last statement on the power of the federal government bar none. The Federal and Anti-Federalist papers explain their thoughts on why they wrote it exactly as they did as well as defining the terms they used. To believe that congress can grant themselves power without amendment, is to ignore the enumerated powers, the 10th amendment AND the fact that the founders, when they wrote the documents, had just fought a war with an all powerful government.

Internment, constitutional or not Racr?

[5.8mont]

I do know about them, and need to take the time to finish reading them. By reading them you can get a better idea of what the framers intended.
But the Government just wipes there ass with the papers and constition anyway.

[LANTIRN]

Rcrguy seems to think the constitution is a living and breathing document that is open to grand interpretation at the drunken whim of a crooked politian. Could not be further from the truth.

[Forever_frost]

Up until that politician decides he doesn't like what Racr says and informs him that freedom of speech and redress of grievances don't mean what he thinks it does and he's committed acts of treason and he is, without due process, executed.

Oh wait, Obama's already done that to an American

[racrguy]

Actually, for the federal government, the Constitution IS the end all be all. First and last statement on the power of the federal government bar none. The Federal and Anti-Federalist papers explain their thoughts on why they wrote it exactly as they did as well as defining the terms they used. To believe that congress can grant themselves power without amendment, is to ignore the enumerated powers, the 10th amendment AND the fact that the founders, when they wrote the documents, had just fought a war with an all powerful government.

Internment, constitutional or not Racr?

Not constitutional, but until it's challenged and ruled on by the supreme court, they can pretty much do whatever they please. I don't agree with that part, as the laws should be constitutional first, but it is what it is.

I do know about them, and need to take the time to finish reading them. By reading them you can get a better idea of what the framers intended.
But the Government just wipes there ass with the papers and constition anyway.

True

Rcrguy seems to think the constitution is a living and breathing document that is open to grand interpretation at the drunken whim of a crooked politian. Could not be further from the truth.

Not a crooked polititian, by the SCOTUS, the way it was intended.

Up until that politician decides he doesn't like what Racr says and informs him that freedom of speech and redress of grievances don't mean what he thinks it does and he's committed acts of treason and he is, without due process, executed.

Oh wait, Obama's already done that to an American

I don't agree with what congress is doing, but until such time as it's challenged, it will stand. If you don't like what they're doing, take it up with the courts. That's what they're there for in this instance. Checks and balances.

[Forever_frost]

No, they really can't. It doesn't matter what the SC says, when Congress passes an unconstitutional law, it's unconstitutional. If the SC refuses to strike it down (as they did with internment) it's up to the states and people to nullify it.

No, you're saying that we have an all powerful government, with no restrictions and calling for the constitution to be followed is somehow crazy or that when reading the Constitution and putting it up, as written, it's somehow stupid. Hell, you've even said you don't believe the constitution is the 'end all and be all'. Now explain that.

[racrguy]

No, they really can't. It doesn't matter what the SC says, when Congress passes an unconstitutional law, it's unconstitutional. If the SC refuses to strike it down (as they did with internment) it's up to the states and people to nullify it.

I agree that when congress passes an unconstitutional law, it's unconstitutional. Otherwise it wouldn't be unconstitutional, now would it? Please provide a link to the SCOTUS case where they didn't strike down internment.

No, you're saying that we have an all powerful government, with no restrictions and calling for the constitution to be followed is somehow crazy or that when reading the Constitution and putting it up, as written, it's somehow stupid. Hell, you've even said you don't believe the constitution is the 'end all and be all'. Now explain that.

Because there's more to constitutionality than the constitution. There's rulings on the constitution and the SCOTUS takes into account writings by the founding fathers to help decipher meanings. There are restrictions on the government. Either you are not comprehending what I'm saying, or I'm doing a poor job at explaining it.