Obama's homosexual affairs heating up - book now bestseller in Germany

[NeoRio1]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Dude, the founders and the framers are not the same thing. The framers are a subset of the founders. Jefferson created declaration of independence but did not attend the constitutional convention for example. You originally specified the founders not the framers.

Even among the framers, there were conflicts (madison v. hamilton comes to mind).

So your concept of "one's love for america" comes down to who loves (or follows?) the constitution the most? Problem is, it is vague on purpose and strict vs loose constructionism comes to mind. It is a silly standard. Why don't you give it up and just realize that one's love for the country cannot be quanitifed and my statement while not politically correct (or acceptable to fox viewers) is entirely correct.

So your saying the foundation and source of legal authority and supreme law in this country is a silly standard?

Once again are you trying to look bad?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

The republican motto:

"If you can't beat 'em, slur 'em..."

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from NeoRio1:

So your saying the foundation and source of legal authority and supreme law in this country is a silly standard?

Once again are you trying to look bad?

There are distinguished legal scholars arguing about what constitution meant non stop, if you are going to use love of constitution as the standard of love for america that means all non lawyers hate america. Constitutional law is one of the most complex courses in an average law school and for good reason.

Any yahoo can walk around talking about his 1st, 2nd, 4th amendment rights but to grasp it as fully as possible you need to be a lawyer.

 

[NeoRio1]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

There are distinguished legal scholars arguing about what constitution meant non stop, if you are going to use love of constitution as the standard of love for america that means all non lawyers hate america. Constitutional law is one of the most complex courses in an average law school and for good reason.

Any yahoo can walk around talking about his 1st, 2nd, 4th amendment rights but to grasp it as fully as possible you need to be a lawyer.

When did I say the constitution can only be interpreted one way?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"You answer this problem by understanding which candidate correlates more with the founding of this country."

Quote from NeoRio1:

When did I say the constitution can only be interpreted one way?

 

[Pekelo]

Quote from jficquette:

If people knew what they know about him now he would not have been elected.

Let's leave W. out of the discussion!

 

[trefoil]

Quote from NeoRio1:

When did I say the constitution can only be interpreted one way?

Nothing makes me more impatient than this constant BS about how liberals mess up the Constitution.
Simple question for all a youse: explain the below two clauses, which come one after another in the Constitution (under Section 8, the powers of Congress):

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from trefoil:

Nothing makes me more impatient than this constant BS about how liberals mess up the Constitution.
Simple question for all a youse: explain the below two clauses, which come one after another in the Constitution (under Section 8, the powers of Congress):

I am a loose constructionist so I don't care really. I am of the opinion that no matter how bright, the founding fathers with 18th and 19th century men and that is their limitation. Society should be able to adapt and manage itself through time and not feel forever chained to opinions of men who died long ago.

 

[trefoil]

There's things that can be interpreted, and things that can't. This one's pretty clear. We'll see if anyone can come up with the reason for the peculiarity embedded in there.

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from trefoil:

There's things that can be interpreted, and things that can't. This one's pretty clear. We'll see if anyone can come up with the reason for the peculiarity embedded in there.

Maybe they thought that the standing NAVY is essential for self defence and protection of commerce and could not be used for oppression of one's own citizens while a standing army would.