Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
It's frustrating, because you're not understanding simple constitutional law and governmental procedure.
|
That's not the problem. I understand the constitution and constitutional law a damn sight better than most people here. The problem is that YOU and a whole host of others around this country think that there are only 9 people who wear black robes and sit on a bench that are qualified to interpret the constitution. This is why we end up with ass backwards and flagrantly illegal decisions like dred scott, cruikshank, and kelo.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
(2nd amendment crap from willravel....)
You read the constitution, and then ignore all of the constitutionally supported rulings over the next few hundred years. It's not 1776. It's 2007. The 231 years, 3 months, and 7 days between then and now still apply. You can ignore them if you want, but the reality is that legally, they happened.
|
Again, you are taking ONE single case that has been repeatedly misinterpreted and perverted by at least 8 circuit courts and trying to declare that those particular idiots know something about the constitution. The time period is irrelevant and whats really amazing is that you think the further AWAY from the period that the constitution was written, the more clearly these idiots in black robes have the ability to know what the founders intended. The part that I bolded? check marbury v. madison.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Neither you nor Dr. Ron Paul are supreme court justices. It's not up to you to interpret laws, those interpretations which can be enforced by the executive. You vote. That is your right.
|
again, your belief that ONLY the judiciary has the so called intelligence and wisdom to interpret a legal document correctly is so clearly foolhardy and wrong and also contributes to the ridiculous fights the parties have in the senate when confirming justices. It's assinine watching our so called representatives try to put a judge on the bench that will twist the constitution their direction. I don't NEED to be a supreme court justice to understand the constitution, only to pervert it legally.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Surely we have the talent in the US to accomplish this, too:
|
but not the will, therein lies the problem.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Sweden's majority is committed to the results described above. The government gets it done. What the government in Sweden accomplishes could be accomplished here, with your support.
|
And you don't have it. Having seen the results of the current government support of lazy asses like the current generation of kids graduating high school nowadays, makes me doubly sure I won't be supporting them by working my ass off.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
No other method besides the efforts of strong federal government have achieved the low poverty rate in Sweden.
|
A strong federal government, the exact opposite of what this country was founded to be.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
It is not that government does not work, it is that you are not interested in trying to make it work, but you offer not other remedy to mitigate growing wealth inequality.
|
The US government was not given authority to make wealth accumulation equal and fair, it was given authority to protect the individual rights and liberties of it's citizens.