Constitutionalists vs Anti-Constitutionalists

1. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   I predict the parties will become either-or ...
   
   As in:
   Democrats/Progressives Liberals: Anti-Constitutionalists.
   vs
   Conservative/Non Progressive Republicans: Constitutionalists.
   
   
   No?
   
   How about:
   Democrats/Progressives Liberals AND Conservative/Non(?)Progressive Republicans: Anti-Constitutionalists.
   vs
   The People who (still) Believe in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness: Constitutionalists.
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 87

      MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Kathryn, what on earth would cause you to think that Democrats don't believe in the Constitution. While the ultra liberals can be socialistic, regular Democrats try to uphold people's constitutional rights. Ultra Conservatives in the Republican party depart from the party line in that they are so pro-business that when given full rein, they tromp all over the average American's constitutional rights. It seems to me that both Democrats and Republicans when following the true lines of their parties are in their hearts and minds supporters of the U.S. Constitution. When they polarize beyond those lines in either direction, they lose sight of rights bestowed on citizens by our constitution. When that happens, I don't think you can call either one a true Democrat or Republican.
      
      But if you want to get specific, the Republican Party is the party most polarized and dedicated to taking away women's rights or not giving equal rights to women. Equal pay for equal work, women's rights to work in certain fields considered "men's work, including serving in the armed forces," and women's rights to equal health care are just a few of the areas in which women have had to fight  to the teeth against Republican opposition. Republicans are still fighting today against equal health care for the poor, the working middle class, and for women. Republicans are leading the fight against our LGBT citizens, while few Democrats give a tinker's dam what one's sexuality is. Is not this a part of the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

         That certainly deserves a 10-4.

         replyreport
      2. 61

         dianetrotterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         and I thank you!

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Me too!

            replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      - Favoring whites over other races.
      - Favoring Christianity over other religions.
      - Favoring heteorsexuality over other orientations.
      - Favoring men over women.
      - Favoring the 2nd Amendment over other Amendments.
      - Favoring the few over the many.
      
      All of these behaviors are anti-Constitution. Which political party fits this description?

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         NONE, Rooster Little.  Not even the Ultra Conservatives. They have a much more sinister agenda than this and could care less about these trivial and nonexistent issues. They have much DEEPER concerns. Of course, some fall into their trap quite easily ... it looks like.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Mrs. Magoo, it's astonishing the way extremists have blinded themselves to the truth. Propaganda does work after all.
            
            

            replyreport
   3. 55

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Kathryn,
      Congress is already unconstitutional for being in parties, for not being elected constitutionally, for not inquiring of the people how to cast their votes on all matters and so much more.
      
      The president is unconstitutional for ordering that strike without congress giving permission, for okaying the oil pipeline over the Lakota's land without their permission as the treaties states and even he wasn't a person of integrity the elected.
      
      The Supreme court is unconstitutional for saying Corporations are people without them being conceived in a girl who birthed them.
      
      They all are unconstitutional by not having neither gold nor silver as the value of our currency and the fact that the government doesn't govern constitutionally.
      
      On and on we can go showing how this government isn Anti-Constitutional.
      
      I am the only person I KNOW who wants the constitution implemented, some people wants some few parts used but not the things that will bring the 6 conditions the Preamble say the rest of the document is supposed to bring into fruition. My vote is For constitutionality of our government.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe you should run for President

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            There's no better response than that .

            replyreport
         2. 55

            The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            If someone doesn't chose me as the presidential candidate for their state then I would be unconstitutional. The Constitution has to be followed in order for me to be elected in any of the check and balance positions of government.

            replyreport
2. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   So in conclusion:
   Its the Regular Conservatives and the the Regular Liberals who are Constitutionalists.
   The ULTRA Liberals and the ULTRA Conservatives who are the Anti-Constitutionalists!
   
   The Regular two parties against the Ultra two parties.
   Does this mean we, (Regular Liberals and Conservatives) DO have a same page?
   
   Yes! But we disagree in terms of philosophy, only, it seems. Therefor we can say, "In my Opinion …" converse and discuss and get along just fine, US CONSTITUTIONALISTS!
   and we may have to, in order to fight the Anti-Constitutionalists.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe we need to start two new parties, the Constitutionalists and the anti-Constitutionalists.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Well, ?
         
         (That is a deep subject!)

         replyreport
      2. 55

         The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         How can we have "parties" when the intent of the constitution is to "perfect the union," per the Preamble, and any accepted divisions in government, people or states allowed is unconstitutional if it is allowed?

         replyreport
3. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   Philosophy
   "philosophy |fəˈläsəfē| noun
   the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy." dictionary
   
   "1 thinking, thought, reasoning.
   2 beliefs, credo, convictions, ideology, ideas, thinking, notions, theories, doctrine, tenets, principles, views, school of thought; ism." thesaurus

   replyreport
   1. 55

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      When we define the two words used to form philosophy we find "philo" means lover and "sophy" means wisdom making the word philosophy to mean "one who loves wisdom so much they will devote their life to obtaining it concerning all of existence." To obtain wisdom one has to be an objective observer, participator and reasoner able to communicate their findings.

      replyreport
4. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   Life on earth is not perfect. All we can do it play it by ear the best we can. Ideally, everyone in the  nation would be Constitutionalists.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Sad part is Kathryn , there are too many who believe the constitution outdated , as in their belief of the same for good manners based on the bible  , there is never an outdating of morality , ethics or honesty.  A nation founded on the basic premise of affordable individual human liberties FROM tyrannical government , Is one that scares them I guess . But Why we ask ? Because they felt not the connection to all of the above from an early age and have never known tyranny.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Ahhh ...

         replyreport
5. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   … some instinctively know what destroys freedom. Some can't live without it and dread such a condition.
   Higher taxes is what we originally detested and the first Tea Party set us on a course of liberty from the tyranny of our mother country, England and King George.
   
   I guess some don't perceive our true history
   And don't give a rat's rear for the truth of the matter
   At hand.
   https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/15/politics … publicans/

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That may be it , Some have no concept of the incredible importance of all history , ".......Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it...."  I believe the left has no love either for learning ours or anybody's history at all. constitutional rights , They all cry for ALL woman's rights but ignore the individual woman , same for childrens ,the immigrants , the disabled , patients  , the handicapped ..........
      
      For instance , illegal immigration ,politically  liberals want them all enmass across the borders  unhindered  -but thousands upon thousands have died from dehydration and exposure in the deserts , drug trafficking and sex trades.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         There is an issue we should all agree on:  Legal immigration.

         replyreport
      2. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         "They all cry for ALL children's rights
         all immigrant's rights
         all disabled rights
         all patient's rights
         all handicapped rights."
         
         But the rights are already inclusive in the Constitution.
         … what's the "crying" and/or fighting about?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Two words Kathryn - disregard everything else you've ever read . More rights .

            replyreport
         2. 55

            The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Kathryn, the "Crying" is because they want to protest the government rather than "PETITION" (Amendment 1) it. What they should do is write it showing the Constitutionality of what they are being denied and send it to one of the appropriate sources, congress, DOJ or President, "DEMANDING" a response.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               … demand their rights, which they already have. Just ACT on it, people.

               replyreport
               1. 55

                  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  If it is constitutional the response should be them obtaining their rights. To petition is demanding.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     obtain
                     1 get, acquire, come by, secure, procure, come into the possession of, pick up, be given; gain, earn, achieve, attain; get hold of, get/lay one's hands on, get one's mitts on, land, net.
                     
                     petition
                     a formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority with respect to a particular cause:
                     verb
                     make or present a formal request to (an authority) with respect to a particular cause:

                     replyreport
                     1. 55

                        The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        That definition of Petition is true under normal conditions but not with the U.S. Constitution's Amendment 10 giving We The People the right to do what the governors of the nation and of the states refuse to do. Therefore, when we Petition the Government we are Demanding of them something they are refusing to do.
                        
                        When one understands the constitution they are empowered to be over the governors of both nations or states who violates the constitution. You must not have read my "The U.S. Constitution's Spirit" to see how the document should b e interpreted rather than how is usually is interpreted.

                        replyreport
6. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   Another one we could/should all agree on is maintaining a decent level of taxation. As in, not too high. And only when truly appropriate.
   
   And appreciate tax cuts when they're issued!!!!
   
   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ … ar-AAvZb7K

   replyreport
7. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   So all we have do do is OBTAIN our rights ...
   
   thanks to the heroes in American History, such as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Lafayette who led the fight for our God given rights.
   
   "According to cultural historian Lloyd Kramer, Lafayette (as well as a later visitor to America, Alexis de Tocqueville) "provided foreign confirmations of the self-image that shaped America's national identity in the early nineteenth century and that has remained a dominant theme in the national ideology ever since: the belief that America's Founding Fathers, institutions, and freedom created the most democratic, egalitarian, and prosperous society in the world."
   
   FROM
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_d … _Lafayette

   replyreport
   1. 55

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The United States is NOT an "egalitarian" nation. There is almost nothing in this nation that promote equality although the Constitution if implemented would have made this nation "egalitarian".

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         - we are talking about opportunity, not outcome... I don't know what you are talking about.

         replyreport
         1. 55

            The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            The opportunity isn't there when those in charge doesn't do what their SUPREME law demands of them.

            replyreport