Living in New England I’m used to being surrounded by those on the opposite end of the political spectrum from myself. Liberals, more often than Conservatives, like to advertize their liberalism in the form of bumper stickers. Here’s one such self-congratulating Liberal I found while at work:
I guess what’s throwing me is the one that says “I am a CONSTITUTION VOTER”. I guess it shouldn’t though. Many on the political Left believe the Spirit of the Constitution (which evolves over time) holds authority, and not necessarily the words on the page carrying the definitions and applications in the era in which it was written. To them, it’s not so much the principles the Founders meant to instill into the American government. Of course not. To the political Left, the meaning of the Constitution changes to keep with the times. It’s actually a clever way to avoid having to use the Amendment process which is rather difficult. If you simply change the definitions of the words, you don’t actually have to get the consent of the people to Amend the Constitution: Privacy means right to abortion, Shall not be infringed means restrictions are OK, as long as they aren’t infringements, General welfare means government is the head of your household.
So yeah, in this guy’s head, he’s a Constitution voter.
__________________________
Legal Insurrection has kindly posted my submission!
Sifting Reality 
The only constitution they vote is the one they can bend to their every whim.
If we are not just making a gross generalization of the left in it’s totality then I fully agree. This bumper seems to be of the far left which is a fringe I might add and I couldn’t agree more with their interpretive powers concerning the constitution.
But maybe I could ask another question, do you feel that any of the more left leaning ideas that have played out legislatively and become important parts of Americanism are inherently bad? SS, Medicare/Medicaid, food stamps, welfare across the board, to include Section 8 housing and other affiliated Federal programs? The abuse aside and the much maligned fiscal state of some of these programs in the long term. If they were, say self sufficient or never in the red, even long term, is it the philosophy of helping others even with Federal dollars or is it something else?
There have many good arguments made that have shown that our ability to transform into a social democracy is what really lofted this country to greatness.
Where/when in your opinion should we have not gone so terribly wrong in this regard?
And when I talk about welfare or social programs I keep in mind the corporate/industry welfare, grants, tax breaks, monopolies etc. that come from the Federal coffers as well. Which by the way outnumber social dollars 24-26 to 1 every year. Is it really the Federal Govt’s job to prop up the private sector to this extent every year? This throws a real monkey wrench into the argument that whats wrong with this country is all of the social welfare parasites.
No. To the political Left, the meaning of the Constitution is whatever validates their ideology.
The self-styled “progressives” are dishonest, undemocratic, villainous, detestable, disgusting, and immoral. I’ve no use for them.
Too bad, Terrance, honey. We still love you, though. And, unfortunately, unless you move to some magical land free of progressive thought, you’re sort of stuck with us, so you may as well kiss and make up.
The thing is, we’re not some weirdos who are, in the real world, dishonest or undemocratic who hate the Constitution. We’re just your fellow citizens who disagree with you on how best to interpret it in these modern times.
If our positions truly were unconstitutional, all you’d have to do is bring it before the Court and settle it. The thing is, disagreeing with your opinions is not the same as being “unconstitutional,” any more than disagreeing with fundamentalist churches about God’s opinion is anti-God. It’s just another crazy opinion in this rich tapestry called Life.
Embrace it.
Don’t you just love how far left wing liberals identify themselves as “progressive,” as if there is anything progressive about destroying society and ruining a nation.
DT says they just know how to “best” interpret the Constitution – i.e., practicing eisegesis with it the same way they do with the Bible.
Dan Trabue,
Hopefully, this country will come to its sense and pass a law making it a crime to even know a liberal-progressive. They are, after all, undesirables.
Liberals are liars by nature. And they have no love for the Constitution unless it can be molded, twisted, and transformed into something its not. When that doesn’t work, they call for a rewrite. And they have, actually. The liberal reporter Ezra Klein said famously that the Constitution is an antiquated document that needs to be replaced. Other liberals have said this as well.
Terrance,
They don’t even have to rewrite it, just like DT doesn’t have to rewrite the Bible. They just re-interpret it to their agenda. All they have to do is first find an undefined “right” in the Constitution, such as the “right” to privacy (which is not there). Once they find a “right” that isn’t really there, then they look for a “penumbra” around that right which just happens to include a subset of what they want a right to do, and then from that penumbra, the find “emanations” which point directly to the right they want. That is how they got the “right” to abortion. The SCOTUS found the right to abortion in the emanations of the penumbra of the right to privacy.
Pretty slick, isn’t it?
How’s it feel to be in the minority rah? Does your hatred and rage keep your pathetic self warm at night? Snuggling up to AFA/AFR or fox news with all of their antiquated musings. Amazing that you think your opinions have any bearing on the outcome of the nation. Majority rules chump and you are going the way of the dinosaur.
And who would make the unconstitutional laws you mention above? Mcarthy? Your proposals are insane and a sign of a mental handicap if not a true psychosis.
Do you know how many times the Constitution has actually been changed since its inception? And how many of those changes came from your enemy, the progressive liberals? Rhetorical question of course.
I have a feeling we will be reading your excuse for a manifesto soon after a prolonged firefight with federales in the north of Idaho in the future. Maybe you and glenn beck can make babies , burn some witches and do some whining together before you have your Waco moment…
Do you think that anyone other than your minority fringe compatriots takes you seriously?
R. Nash,
Ah, the ignoble R. Nash. Have I wounded your pride? I must’ve. I can think of no other reason why you have such a hard-on for me…
Am I in the minority? Sure. All conservatives are. Liberals have brainwashed people and pit countrymen against countrymen. They’ve seared the conscience of nearly half the country, ripping away any sense of patriotism this nation ever had.
Who could honestly be patriotic anymore? Not even the most hopelessly deluded liberal will recognize this country as the one in which he or she was raised – and this they love! This country is becoming unrecognizable anymore. This isn’t the country I was brought up in. It’s not the country I fell in love with. Liberals have destroyed that nation.
They did it, like I said, by brainwashing people and pitting countrymen against countrymen. Black vs. White. Rich vs. Poor. Gay vs. Straight. LIberals create little conflicts and then pick sides.
But they’ve also managed to change the demographics of this nation in their favor. California was once reliably conservative. Nixon won it six times and Reagan won it four. A Republican can’t even be competitive there anymore. Liberals have fostered a massive demographic change that overwhelmingly benefits their candidates. And once Texas goes, there will never be another Republican president.
People like you, R. Nash, will be responsible for the death of the greatest nation the world has ever known – and you’ll love it. But eventually people like me will rise up and let justice be done.
Why did your god choose to “let this country go to hell in a hand basket”? Or why did he choose it to be liberal? If christians are always claiming that this or that was the hand of god, then maybe his hand guided the country away from puritanical, witch burning, commie fearing, hippie hating tools of Israel and introduced some common sense. Why did your god allow for so much “brainwashing? How could decent, god fearing, fag haters be so easily swayed by scum like us? Unless you are just all so easily swayed from one zealot set of beliefs to another….Is that why they call you a flock? Of course how could you ever disprove my theory….
And I look forward to your justice. I am at Ft. Hood anytime your interested. Give me a heads up so I can gather an audience of atheist Soldiers watch your vain and ego driven physical assault on me….Try to make your god proud.
R. Nash,
You present typical atheist lines popular among the average skeptic, but rejected by percipient atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Why? Because it is logically incoherent to a Christian, with whom atheists most often battle.
We believe God created us with free will. We choose to let the country go to hell. We choose to sit on our asses as little children in third-world agony starve to death, perhaps unaware that anyone of us could save their life with the mere change in our pockets. We choose to let such things happen, not God. This is Christianity 101.
But I’m not here to clean up after other Christians. I don’t know why people believe God’s hand is involved in everything. I have no idea. Do I believe God’s hand is at work in some lives? Yes, I do. Why some and not others? I honestly don’t know.
Tools of Israel? Are you an antisemite, R. Nash?
With respect to my comment in the last post, you are taking it all wrong. I’m talking about a second revolution, which I believe is imminent if things continue down this broken path. There is too much animosity between countrymen. We are not One People anymore. I think America is headed for another civil war, another revolution. And I’m not the only one who believes this.
And you talk about me being in the minority, Mr. Fort Hood. At least 70% of the military are reliable Republican voters…If there is another revolution, big government liberals will rely on – who? The military? Ha! Police? Ha! Over 300 Sheriffs have signed a pledge guaranteeing they will not enforce any unconstitutional firearm restrictions…
LIberals won’t have a leg to stand on.
Good luck with your non revolution. Maybe you and beck can curl up with the sheriffs and make tin foil hats while you wait for the black new world order helicopters. I have been hearing this same line of nonsensical gibberish for 25 years. And the closest your tribe has ever come was Waco….or maybe Oklahoma City…..
Why doesn’t your 70% republican military overthrow Obama?
Just more radicalism from the fear mongering right wing….no drum to beat except the made up conspiracy drum anymore…..on the fringe of the fringe…..how pathetic.
Violence won’t be necessary. The show of force will be too overwhelming for leftwing resistance to form…
TerranceRAH.
So you are planning a coup d’état to destroy democracy and establish a rightwing fascism?
Isu,
No, I’m planning nothing. But I do think another revolution is imminent. When it’s done, America will be back to common sense, Constitutional governance.
Fascism is alive and well right now with Obama at the helm. And I’m not sure his presidency is even legitimate. I’ve seen no proof that he was born in America.
TerranceRAH
It has nothing to do with the Constitution. On the contrary, I think that your position is unconstitutional since you want an unregulated militia.
There are other ways against what we could consider an unconstitutional law. In my country, for example, people can appeal to the Constitutional Court.
Obama was chosen democratically by votes and he isn’t changing the system and using violence to keep goverment as fascists do. I haven’t seen any proof that you were born in America. Should I doubt about the legitimacy of your vote?
Isu,
Clearly you don’t understand the United States Constitution, and until you do, you should perhaps stick to the politics in your own country.
First, an “unregulated militia” is not unconstitutional. The United States has many. The Michigan Militia is one such example. It is under no government or civil authority. It is merely a group of guys that get together and conduct training drills, and they’re located all over the state.
Second, our Supreme Court has affirmed more than once an individual’s right to keep and bear, but that hasn’t stopped leftwing assaults on the Second Amendment. It seems likely that the people will have to rise up and stop it themselves, by force if necessary.
Whether Obama was “democratically” elected is besides the point (and debatable, since allegations of voter fraud are rampant). If he is not a natural-born citizen, he is not eligible to be President of the United States, thus making his “victory” invalid.
Your opinion of my citizenship doesn’t matter a lick to me or anyone else. You’re just some foreigner. But for your information, I had to provide proof of citizenship before I was furnished with a driver’s license, which I use to vote.
Unlike Obama, I have all the proper identification and paperwork, free of error. Obama’s birth-certificate is littered with errors. And while my family will all affirm that I am a natural born citizen of the United States, Obama’s family claims he was born in Kenya. Why would they say such things? Why would his birth-certificate have such errors? Why would his first book publisher say he was born in Kenya?
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Isu, et al
I want to point out that “well-regulated” militia does not mean “regulated” by the government as in rules and regulations. The following citation explains what the Constitution means by “a well-regulated militia”:
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Glenn,
You didn’t understand the point. I didn’t say that a “unregulated militia” were unconstitutional. I said that denying a “regulated” militia is unconstitutional. Rules about the militia weaponary can be set.
If you have court support you can appeal to it before using force. Lawsuits can be more effective.
Was his citizenship questioned before being a president or even a known politician? If it wasn’t so, it seems to be a slander.
Has Obama driver license? If you provided proof of citizenship to get driver’s license so did Obama.
That claims looks like libel. An american going to another country to have her son there seems weird. Anyway, Obama would be an USA citizen by Jus Sanguinis (Right of Blood).
Obama is a rightful USA citizen since his mother already is one.
Isu,
You make less and less sense with each post. Your argument seems to be that since I, an individual, demand AR 15s be legal, I’m interfering with the “regulation” of militias?
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Are you aware of that? You sound like an idiot.
Obama’s citizenship has been questioned long before he was elected president.
The laws are different in each state. Why don’t you quit talking about American politics until you can speak intelligently on the matter…Geez.
No, he wouldn’t. There is no legal precedent. Besides, Obama’s mother expatriated her citizenship, so Obama would not qualify by “right of blood” because that doesn’t matter; citizenship matters, and his mother expatriated hers.
Obama’s mother lost her citizenship. She expatriated it. So, you have no idea what you’re talking about, per usual.
R. Nash,
I don’t give a damn what you’ve been hearing for 25 years. There’s never been so divisive a president as Barack Obama, and never such a push to curb Second Amendment freedoms.
Believing that America is immune from civil unrest won’t protect you when it happens.
Glenn
You are the one who don’t know I’m talking about. I’m saying that since you are a militiaman your activities as such can be regulated.
I don’t wonder you would said something like that even not knowing the case. Slanders are covered by more slanders.
Isu,
I think you are confusing your responses between me and Terrance. I slandered no one, I mentioned no cases.
My point was that the term “well regulated” in the Constitution had nothing to do with being regulated by the government. And, no, the Federal government has no right to regulate state, city or county militias. You demonstrate a lack of knowledge of American law.
Glenn,
You are right, it’s Terrance.
Is there a law that says that federal govement hasn’t that right? Which is it?
Isu,
Our Constitution states what the Feds can do, and if not in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment says it’s left to the states. Nothing in the Constitution says the Feds can regulate state, county, city or private militias.
Glenn
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
It’s a federal power to regulate (organizing, arming and disciplining) the militia according to your Constitution.
Isu,
HEY DUMMY – that is not referring to local militias, and is most likely referring to the National Guard. Do you have a complete citation which delineates what the context is? And notice also what it says – to “provide for” – to make sure it happens, that someone takes care of the job. Notice also it says for arming and disciplining as something they are to provide for, not actually do. And the governing part comes only for “such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States” – i.e., ONLY if the said militia is in the U.S. service.
It does NOT say to regulate – it says to provide for. Perhaps English isn’t your first language?
Why has this broken down into name calling? I get the frustration but still let’s try to be civil
Don’t worry about that, John. I’ll quit arguing about the gun issue.
Isu
I dont care if you or anyone argues for their view. I just noticed some name calling going on, and it just shows a breakdown of the participants. I like everyone to be civil to one another, that’s all.
John,
Yes, but stop arguing is a good way to prevent that from going on. Besides, it is getting us nowhere.