Seth wrote:
No, you merely have to look through Article 1. That's where the powers of the federal government are listed. In fact, Section 8 provides a good summary.
Oh, now it's Article I Section 8... Yesterday, it was the 10th Amendment. What happened Seth? Did I make you look? LOL
BTW, when I said you have to look through the entire constitution, Article I Section 8 is included and no, it's not a summary of all the powers of the federal government. For instance, the power of the House to impeach the president is not presented in Section 8 because it's presented in Article II. Obviously, you don't really know the Constitution like you think you do.
Seth wrote:
Yet the Democratic Party seems hell bent on micromanaging the country by enacting federal laws that override the right of states to decide that which the Constitution provides for them to decide.
What like the right for a State to decide if cannabis is legal? It is in California but the Republicans in Washington DC insist on federal prohibition. And what about abortion? I don't see anything about that in the Constitution either and yet Republicans are hell bent on making that a federal crime. What about same sex marriage Seth? Is that in the Constitution? No? then why was Bush and the Republicans pushing for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex marriage?
Don't even start with that BS about the Democrats overriding the right of states to legislate what isn't reserved for the federal government when the Republicans are just as bad, if not worse. (fkg pot calling the kettle black)
Seth wrote:
It was these attempts at usurpation that prompted the governor of South Dakota, during the Obama Administration and totally within those Tenth Amendment rights, to tell Obama that, essentially, "we don't care how you want to tamper with Americans' Second Amendment rights, you're not doing it in our state."
LOL - Ooh, big scary South Dakota. Hissing at Obama because they think he's going to take away their right to bear arms. Did the governor think the Second Amendment rights are written in Article II like half the retards in the NRA? Ha, ha, ha!
Ughrrr, I'm smart.Seth wrote:
None of the rhetoric from the left fools a thinking individual for a second.
Maybe that's because the left has no reason to fool anyone, much less the thinking individuals that can actually grasp the concepts the left is concerned with.
Seth wrote:
One of the Democrat senators, on the confirmation today of Amy Coney Barrett, actually said that her confirmation was ushering in a new era of "conservative activism," which is "liberal" speak for adherence to the Constitution, but using that turn of phrase he was being very misleading.
Ugh... so boorish. How old are you?
Conservative activism is the flip-side of the same argument conservatives have made for years when they complain about liberals legislating from the bench. Adherence to the Constitution is the reason why Amy Barrett is going to be a big disappointment to conservative activists that think they push all their rules through the bench.
Seth wrote:
To the Democratic Party, the only good judge or justice is an activist who puts the Constitution second, his/her political agendas or 🎵feelings🎶first. They favor activist judges who legislate from the bench when the Democrats can't get an agenda passed in Congress.
More baseless drivel. So boring *yawn*
Seth wrote:
A prime example is what a "liberal" judge pulled on the Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado, supported by Democrat politicians out there who apparently "misinterpreted" the First Amendment, as was later pointed out in no uncertain terms by the U.S Supreme Court.
Not everyone on the left was in agreement Seth. I for one, could see that there was no constitutional provision that says a business owner can't refuse service. You had a handful of of people in the LGBT community that got their panties in a knot and Republicans tried to make that a "leftist" thing.
Seth wrote:
But... Your side of the political equation is trying, basically, to undo every single tradition that's served America well throughout our history, while making it seem through mainstream media propaganda as if we conservatives who want to preserve those traditions are the Johnny come lately radicals attempting to disrupt the system. Total deflection.
No, it's not a deflection. What you don't seem to understand is that "my side" of the political equation has been doing this for well over a century, at least as far back as the Civil War when the liberals, who were running the Republican Party at the time, abolished the tradition of slavery. Then under Teddy Roosevelt the progressive movement was indoctrinated and in the 60's when the Democratic Party took up the liberal cause the focus was on civil rights.
At this point, the U.S. has been straddling both conservative AND liberal traditions for a very long time and yes, there are advocates on the right today that want to overthrow liberal traditions that have served this country for most of its history.
Seth wrote:
And Joe Biden, who said the other night that instead of packing the Court, he might try to do a rotation where the justices are periodically rotated out to federal courts and federal judges are rotated in.
So?
Seth wrote:
Contrary to the propaganda efforts and the youth indoctrination in our education system courtesy of the left and their Democrat partners, America works just fine as it is and doesn't need any radical "upgrades" or "fundamental transformations" such as those your good friends on the far left are "offering,"
The only reason why it works at all is because liberals have been changing the laws to deal with the changing times for the last 150 years and we will continue to do so for the next 150 years. The difference is that liberals deal with the changing times that conservatives are too busy romanticizing the past to even notice.
Seth wrote:
just as we don't need your identity politics to divide the country under the pretense of "social justice."
Social justice is not a pretense. It's a real issue that you folks don't want to hear about so you try to pass it off as "identity politics" because you've heard us accusing you of identity politics and it always make you feel smarter if you use our words.
Seth wrote:
In short, your "reasoning" that supports all the above might work with one of the undereducated, critical thinking challenged idiots they're graduating from the left-run indoctrination education system these days, but it doesn't or wouldn't pass muster with most Americans.
Most Americans are liberals who don't share your need to lash out at education because they aren't threatened by it like you apparently are.
Seth wrote:
Part of any leftist propaganda strategy is convincing a population that "the vast majority of you want this change" or "everyone knows this for a fact," when in both cases the opposite is true.
Spoken like a "true expert" on liberal politics...
Seth wrote:
I'm sure you'd make a fortune in certain places as a highly skilled snake oil salesman, as adept as you are at making the unreasonable seem as though it may be reasonable, but that doesn't work with critical thinkers or with those of us who are quite familiar with the concept of cause and effect.
Actually, my arguments are rational and well supported and critical thinkers tend to agree with or at least recognize what I am saying. You're just not a critical thinker Seth. I can tell by your inability to grasp the concepts I present and you tendency to parrot.