Adagio

The picture you offer, would suggest that a debate is being lost. That's hardly the situation when you need to avoid a direct question to you. BTW...conservatism and r****m go hand in hand. You call yourself a "constitutional conservative". Explain what that means and I'll gladly prove my point. Are you an originalist?? Do you believe that the constitution should be explained as it was originally written??

Adagio

>"You called me a "bigot" to start, and all I asked was, for you to explain where you got such an idea."<

Provide the post where all you asked was "where I got such an idea"

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

I have read your posts. I will address the majority of them later this evening.

1: A constitutional conservative, is one the that believes in small government, and keeping the national debt within reason(not $17 trillion), not spending tax payer monies frivolously, such as billions to countries that have stated they are OUR enemy(Egypt for now).
Also in regards to the constitution, that this is the law of the land, there should be no bypassing this document(Obama does this freely, or more than any president before him), and yes in most if not all cases this document should be followed to the letter.

I'll address the other things later, when I return home. This is just a quick comment on my posistion as I am pressed for time, normally I could be more specific, I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.

'Til later

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

put the kool-aid down and back away from the table

rumitoid

What tyranny would look like in America is the present reality of America. The Patriot Act has sold or shredded American ideals and principles for safety: then what are we preserving? Both parties have become pawns, which leaves no representation for "we the people." We revolted over "taxation without representation," now not only do we lack representation because nearly all are in the pocket of special interest, but our government treats its citizens with a suspicion and scrutiny once forbidden by the Constitution and thought impossible here.

rumitoid

Both parties have become drones for the beehive of Corporate America. Globalization has purposely diluted American identity and heart.

Adagio

Ok. For starters, Obama has NOT bypassed the constitution more than any other president. That would be Dubya.

Bush went around the constitution in violating the 4th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. He pushed for the Patriot Act and it was passed. He pushed for the Military Commissions Act which he used to allow him to suspend Habeas Corpus for the only time since Lincoln did it during the Civil War. The Constitution allows that to be done under two circumstances. 1. An invasion by a foreign country, and 2. I**********n. Those are the only two exceptions that would permit suspending Habeas Corpus.

Bush and Lincoln both Suspended Habeas Corpus;

On Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signed a law suspending the right of habeas corpus to persons "determined by the United States" to be an "enemy combatant" in the Global War on Terror. President Bush's action drew severe criticism, mainly for the law's failure to specifically designate who in the United States will determine who is and who is not an "enemy combatant."

"What, really, a time of shame this is..."

To President Bush's support for the law -- the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- and its suspension of writs of habeas corpus, Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University stated, "What, really, a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principles and values."


Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

What Bush and Cheney did was bypass the FISA Court and engage in warrantless wiretapping of citizens. That's a violation of the 4t Amendment. All they needed to do was go the FISA Court which rubber stamps such requests, but that would be too much of a bother. Why do that when they can just go around them. Who cares about whether its constitutional or not?

So, the 6th Amendment that states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."... was tossed.

And lets not forget the 8th amendment that deals with cruel and unusual punishment. Torturing prisoners violates that.

So I think as usual, people like YOU are going way overboard, or have very selective memories.

>"and yes in most if not all cases this document should be followed to the letter."<

Well, as you are an originalist and I know you wouldn't admit to being a r****t or W***e S*********t, how do you justify Article I, Section 2, (basing a states representation in the House of Representatives on its FREE population and three -fifths of "all other persons" within its territories. OR...Article I, Section 9 (barring Congress from abolishing the s***e trade before 1808) OR>>>Article 4, Section 2, (providing for the return of runaway s***es)

All of those items are in the the Constitution. You're an Originalist. The Constitution was a document designed to represent a W***e S*********t Male Dominated Society. I would have to assume that since you are telling me that you believe in the original reading of the document, that you find no problem there? As a conservative you believe in maintaining existing institutions. As a Constitutional Conservative there is nothing more established as an institution, as our constitution. How can you claim to be a Constitutional Conservative, a believer in reading the constitution as it's written, and then tell me that you aren't a r****t when the very document that you identify your ideology with IS a r****t W***e S*********t document? Can you square that circle for me??

rumitoid

Except for the assumptions about Righties, which I feel are more than useless but a danger to America, you are quite well informed. So nice to have you on board.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I am an originalist in that I still believe in the origination of bills and who can originate them. In case I am a bit too wild maybe I should point out to you that Harry Reid seems to be sitting on the amnesty bill which provides for some taxing and collecting of same. The Constitution of the United States says that all revenue bills have to originate in the House. I guess they got by with the same damned thing when the Senate brought up and passed the Obamacare bill. Do you think that nasty Supreme Court will let them get by with Obamacare the next time around? I don't.

rumitoid

Oldroy, you okay? Something seems a bit off. Just asking.

Adagio

I wish I could disagree with you.

Adagio

The Constitution says we must return runaway s***es too.

All revenue bills do originate in the House. They hold the purse strings. Obamacare came out of both houses. There was a House version and a Senate version. They put it together in committee as all bills are done. Obamacare is legal and constitutional. And Boehner is going to bring it up for the 38th time in an attempt to repeal it, which of course will never pass the Senate, and even if it did, Obama would Veto it. So...Boehner and the House are wasting everyone's time and money.

rumitoid

Sincerely, me too.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I am doing fine and since you don't know what I am talking about when I talk about origination let me help you understand just what part of the Constitution was violated when the Senate passed and then sent to the House of Reps the bill known as Obamacare. You don't really know why Roberts will probably v**e against the law this next time around but maybe you can understand origination if I let you see the quoted words from the
Constitution.

Article I, Section 7, Clause 1. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

Please try to understand what these words say so when the Supreme Court determines that as a tax law Obamacare is very unconstitutional. You people need to hope that the Court doesn't take any of the new cases, especially the one from the 4th Judicial Circuit from yesterday.

rumitoid

If "by you people" you mean Americans like myself, then thank you for the heads up.