Life Under the Tea Party

[dbphoenix]

4 posts back, dude.

So "abiding by the Constitution" means abiding by the Constitution as written as well as all the Supreme Court decisions?

Somehow I doubt that TPs would agree.

 

[Tsing Tao]

He didn't.

Thanks, but that issue was settled half a day ago. Spike supports those principles. He was just poking fun at Lucrum for supporting them, too. Or something.

 

[piezoe]

I have said, "We should burn the Constitution and start over." Now I'm concerned that a new Constitution would be worse. Looks like we are all doomed to work within the present system. Woe is me.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I have said, "We should burn the Constitution and start over." Now I'm concerned that a new Constitution would be worse. Looks like we are all doomed to work within the present system. Woe is me.

Thank God above that very few share the asinine viewpoint on the Constitution that you hold.

 

[Tsing Tao]

So "abiding by the Constitution" means abiding by the Constitution as written as well as all the Supreme Court decisions?

Somehow I doubt that TPs would agree.

Your doubts aren't relevant to the discussion. The Supreme Court is the ultimate decision in what is or is not Constitutional. If there is a Tea Party individual or politician out there making an argument that a decision the Supreme Court has made is not constitutional, they have the right to disagree. But that doesn't mean jack, as article III supersedes their (the TP individual in your hypothetical example) opinion.

 

[dbphoenix]

I have said, "We should burn the Constitution and start over." Now I'm concerned that a new Constitution would be worse. Looks like we are all doomed to work within the present system. Woe is me.

Agreed. When you consider the knockdown-dragouts that took place then, you can only imagine how bad it would be today.

 

[dbphoenix]

Your doubts aren't relevant to the discussion. The Supreme Court is the ultimate decision in what is or is not Constitutional. If there is a Tea Party individual or politician out there making an argument that a decision the Supreme Court has made is not constitutional, they have the right to disagree. But that doesn't mean jack, as article III supersedes their (the TP individual in your hypothetical example) opinion.

So the individual in question is not "abiding by the Constitution". Seem to be an awful lot of TPs that aren't following that particular demand.

Shall we move on to the other nine?

 

[Tsing Tao]

So the individual in question is not "abiding by the Constitution". Seem to be an awful lot of TPs that aren't following that particular demand.

Shall we move on to the other nine?

We can't move on until you can prove your assertion that "an awful lot of TPs aren't following" the Constitution in that regard. Besides, if we agree that what I said is "following the constitution" (which is necessary to conclude before we move on - as THAT was the argument) then we must first put to rest that this is, or is not (according to you) a belief that one must be partially brain dead in order to follow.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Agreed. When you consider the knockdown-dragouts that took place then, you can only imagine how bad it would be today.

One would hope that such a movement would finally be enough to splinter the country into two sections, and we could go our own separate ways (until you guys run out of money, that is).

 

[dbphoenix]

We can't move on until you can prove your assertion that "an awful lot of TPs aren't following" the Constitution in that regard. Besides, if we agree that what I said is "following the constitution" (which is necessary to conclude before we move on - as THAT was the argument) then we must first put to rest that this is, or is not (according to you) a belief that one must be partially brain dead in order to follow.

You really want me to provide links to all the TP efforts to deny women their rights to abortions?