Search results

No, it's been about "Tea Party Principles" and "Abiding by the Constitution", even though no one can agree on what "abiding by the Constitution" means. Hence the need for a certain degree of brain death to "follow" these principles.

Actually, it does. But the rich aren't going to starve or sleep on the street if their wages are suppressed.

It's irrelevant. The discussion has to do with "abiding by the Constitution", or rather the difficulties of agreeing on what that means.

If you think but cannot be certain, then how is the TP wannabee supposed to follow this particular dictum? Since you think this list is so straightforward, why not do the digging yourself and explain just what it means? Again, unless one can define what "believe in the people" means, it's just...

:cool:

Sure is.

For adhering to the letter of the law re that particular amendment, but that has nothing to do with "abiding by the Constitution" in toto. And there's a lot of Constitution. Why not switch to "believe in the people"? This is particularly amusing. What "people"? "Real" Americans?

All of which may be true, which makes "abiding by the Constitution" all the more difficult.

Who's trying to rewrite it? If the subject was "settled", why not just delete the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" clause and be done with it? Save everybody a lot of trouble? Perhaps it wasn't "settled" after all.

Sure wish McCain had won. He'd show those Russkies.

Usually means to include more people in the population that pay taxes. What conservatives of whatever sort haven't figured out is that if you suppress wages, you reduce revenue, since people who aren't making anything don't pay income tax. Of course, if one wants to eliminate the government...

Actually it wasn't an individual right until 2008. Even so, there's a lot of disagreement on the issue, which makes "abiding by the Constitution" more difficult than the TPs would have one believe.

Except of course for the introductory clause.

So why not say so?

You can start with this one: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-stealth-war-on-abortion-20140115 Any more I'm sure you can find on your own.

That particular group is not, at least insofar as one particular amendment to the Constitution as a whole is concerned. Everyone else, on the other hand, is another matter. And as for their "abiding by the Constitution" as a whole, what I said about being brain dead applies.

No, it means that those who abide by it are abiding by it as defined.

Cool. I call that "abiding by the Constitution".

How 'bout the fact that the amendment is specifically stated in the context of a militia?

That must be one hell of a militia.