Misunderstanding what a Constitution is, perhaps?

A Constitution isn't a body of law. In a general sense it can be said to be "the law of the land", but what it really is is an articulation of principles that GUIDE the law. You can't enforce the Constitution because there's nothing to enforce. What's the punishment for infringing on someone's right to peaceable assembly? The Constitution doesn't say. What exactly constitutes "infringement" or "peaceable" or "assembly"? The Constitution doesn't say. It's up to lawmakers and judges to INTERPRET the Constitution, and to create (and continually challenge and inquire into) laws that implement the principles of the Constitution.

That was what our founding fathers wanted. They could have just written a bunch of laws and said, "Ok, THERE. Those are the laws." But they didn't do that--they did something much MUCH wiser. They didn't give us a corpus of laws, instead they gave us a place to THINK FROM as we create the laws for ourselves. They didn't want a locked-in system--they wanted a structure that could adapt with the times. Because they had the foresight to know that the one thing that times do is CHANGE.

In this case, it took a long time to interpret the new Amendment into law. But it was a necessary step.

I'll also note that Amendment 14, Article 4 says, in part "The validity of the public debt of the United States... shall not be questioned." So it turns out that Tea Parties are unconstitutional!!!

dksuddeth: maybe you're less of a strict constructionist than I thought. I fail to see how the 14th Amendment does anything to prevent a private employer from discriminating based on race. Nor do I see it taking a stance on separate but equal social policies, such as separate water fountains. It's easy to make an argument that separating races in education violates equal protection, but I can't see any such argument for two different water fountains which provide equal quality water. The Civil Rights Act, however, outlawed such practices.

Bullshit. It appears i'm not the one misunderstanding what the constitution is.
The constitution is not a set of 'guidelines', though it has been taken to mean that ever since the civil war. The constitution enumerates very specific and limited powers to the federal government with instructions on how to maintain the bodies of that new government. The laws that come after it prescribed punishments for violations of those powers.

This is why all lawyers and politicians should be drawn and quartered. We had a very simple, but elegant, framework of government that protected the freedom and liberties of the people. It took a bunch of politicians, judges, and lawyers for screw all of that up by claiming it should be 'interpreted' according to the times we live in.

Are the tea party protests an actual lawsuit against the Obama administration for the bailouts and taxes? Hardly, but what they are is a protest of them protected under the First Amendment.

You're smarter than this to try and play semantics with me.

---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------

As far as protection against Employment discrimination, the civil rights act would be dead on and exactly what it should do. voting rights, public education, and anything else under the jurisdiction of a government body should have been handled by the Amendments and not the CR act.

My point is, how could you possibly enforce it without the laws that came to flesh it out? The Constitution and the body of law are different creatures. I agree that in some places the constitution is quite specific (the 14th is a good example of specificity, the 13th is a good example of a general principle that explicitly calls for a fleshing-out by the Congress). You can't just say, "We've got a Constitution--so who needs laws? Giddy up!"

There's nothing preventing the Congress from enacting unconstitutional laws, by the way. It's the job of the Supreme Court to weed those out when a case that applies that law is brought before them.

Listening to right-leaning Libertarian rhetoric is no replacement for having stayed awake in Civics class, my friend.

Discrimination in voting rights or education can be shown to tangibly abridge the privileges of US citizens. It is much more difficult to make that argument for separate public drinking fountains that provide the same water. One could argue that having separate public drinking fountains abridges the rights of black citizens by disallowing use of white drinking fountains that are otherwise public, but the same argument could then be made for public restrooms, and I don't see anyone rushing to convert everything to unisex restrooms because gendered restrooms keep the sexes "separate but equal." Furthermore, to bring this discussion back to the context in which I brought it up, if separate drinking fountains are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, than denying same-sex marriage, or even creating a separate mechanism for it, would be unconstitutional for the same reason. Personally, I'm happy to accept this interpretation, even with its demand for unisex bathrooms, but I don't think it's what was intended. I happily support the idea of a living constitution, but I've gotten a different impression from you. Maybe I was wrong.

Based on what I saw here in San Jose, I'm starting to think that this is what happens when you allow ignorance to go unchallenged. I was hoping that what happened here was a fluke, but apparently it was a pretty accurate cross section of the tea-baggers. It's not ideological, it's ignorance, and it has to be challenged in a big, big way.

The next Tea Party here will be met by me and 300 of my closest protester friends. I hope you'll do the same.

what i've noted in passing before about dk's strict construction viewpoint has now come back up again---what the position really is amounts to a radical reinterpretation of the status of the constitution and the rejection of the entire idea of the common law tradition. what dk is arguing for is a civil law approach. that's fundamentally different. that he makes his argument for an overthrowing of the entire american constitutional system in the name of protecting the consitution is, as it has been, surreal.

no rb, what i'm arguing for is a return to limited FEDERAL government, not a civil law approach. Unfortunately that's probably not going to happen because too many people are accustomed to a federal police system where there isn't an allowance for one. Just one more case of 'who cares, it's been that way for too long' attitude.

if you radically reduce federal government, what's to keep the individual state governments from becoming tyrannical?

I get to pick up and move to a less tyrannical state, just like I did when I left California and moved to New Jersey, then when I didn't like that I moved to New York.

I believe that part of the constitution requires the federal government to ensure that each state is a republic, right? or are you saying that we need a huge federal government because states can't be trusted to abide by their own state constitutions?

Given the stance you take on the issue, I'm downright alarmed that you have to ask this question. I'd think you'd be able to cite from the Constitution chapter and verse...

I'm just asking why the the transfer of power from the fed to the state wouldn't carry with it the problems of said power.

you've heard of the term 'rhetorical'?

---------- Post added at 03:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 PM ----------

I don't know if it would or not, but wouldn't the states be just as adept at handling the problems they encounter as well?

Being "adept" at it doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement. convince me that they can do it better.

i'm not really concerned about showing that the states can do better, just that it's their responsibility to do so and not the feds, except to ensure a republican form of government for each state.

California is too liberal, so you move to New York? Was France full?

No it's more conservative than California and less than New Jersey.

new york city and new york state are two separate animals like Chicago and Illinois.

NARA | The National Archives Experience

Article 1 Section 10

States cannot constitutionally go into deficit.


Article 4 Section 2

Could this include marriage, driver's privileges and so on? I think so.

Article 4 Section 4

Section. 4.

Ammendment 14 Section 1.

I think all those pretty much sums up the case.

---------- Post added at 03:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 AM ----------

I find none offensive. People have the right to speak out. They did so with Bush, Reagan, Clinton and so on. People compared Bush to Hitler, Hell, I did.

For those who criticized Bush and showed him tearing the head off the Statue of Liberty, comparing him to Hitler and so on.... to me have no right to claim ANY ONE of these signs obscene or offensive because when it was their turn they had done the EXACT SAME thing.

It's fucking hypocritical to say "the signs against Obama are offensive and bad" when you did it to Bush.

I feel the same way about those who were calling foul and saying how offensive signs and so on were aginst Bush, yet now they carry those signs against Obama.

Hypocrites are abundant on both sides.

Pan, two points.

1. By the terms of the federal constitution, states can go into debt. I don't see what in that quote says otherwise. However, many/most states have passed balanced budget amendments to their constitutions, so their own state constitutions (unwisely, IMHO) prohibit it.

2. You assume that all of us 'libruls' found all of the signs criticizing Bush to be non-offensive. This isn't true. But more importantly, it assumes some sort of moral equivalency between Bush's actions and Obama's. Bush (or people in his government) acted in violation of the law, the constitution, and international treaties on several occasions. Obama raised taxes a little, in a country with a lower tax burden than just about any other first world country. There's simply no reason, regardless of ideology, to think Obama's actions are nearly as bad as Bush's.

You also assume that criticizing signs as offensive means that we think those holding the signs have no right to speak. But it's possible to protest and still not be horribly offensive. I glanced over the website you link to, and personally I don't find any of those signs offensive. I've seen pictures of a few that I did find offensive on TV.

(Edit: I looked thru the slideshow, and I did see one of the signs I found offensive -- "The American taxpayers are the Jews for Obama's ovens." That's just wrong. Hyperbole is a regular feature of protest signs, and while I often find it humorous, I don't generally find, eg, Obama=Hitler to be offensive. But saying that raising taxes on the rich by 3% is like killing 8 million Jews shows that you simply lack any kind of moral compass whatsoever.)

so what you're saying is that political symbols and arguments are totally empty: any argument can be applied to anybody.

so if someone were to criticize the use of a particular symbol or argument in an inappropriate or stupid way, the problem really is that the person who does the criticism doesn't understand the rules, and the first rule is that political symbols and arguments are totally empty.

but you also assume that everyone knows the rules and that they only pretend not to.

so everyone is a hypocrite.

except you, of course.

powerful stuff there, pan.

I agree. Pan, you are saying this isn't offensive?

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gad...0093_large.jpg

I just liked that part. Yes, many states have passed balanced budget amendments... Ohio included. But some states are running on deficit spending.

No, I don't think "all" or even the vast majority on either side agrees with what is said on 99.9% of those signs. My point is there were some saying as bad of things about Bush and now those people are calling these signs and the criticisms on Obama offensive and wrong. Just as when W was being criticized and some of these people at the parties were all upset and crying foul when W was being raked over the coals and saying you can't or shouldn't say that about our president.

My point was that if you found them offensive for W, why then are those same signs ok now for a sitting president. And conversely, if they were ok then and you may have even found them funny or used them somehow.

Being offensive to me, means it is offensive on either side. So if you decry it when it is against your man but ok against the other... you are a hypocrite. If it's offensive/ok to you on both sides, then you are consistent and not just giving one side a pass while holding the other side up on a pedestal.

---------- Post added at 12:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 PM ----------

No, I am very much a hypocrite at times. we all are. I just like pointing it out.

---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------

Too me, no. because I don't believe it. It'sa not something I have to agree with or even really pay attention to it. I choose not to pay attention to that sign. He has the right to say it and hold it high, I have the right to ignore it.

i dunno, pan: i can't for the life of me figure out where the substance is to what you're saying at this point. you seem to have taken it into your head that by pursuing this line of argument--which i find to be absurd--that you're going to get a rise out of these folk who you imagine you oppose somehow. you have tow or three basic moves that you use repeatedly, and the only objective i can make out for doing it is the above.

one move is setting up a straw man "liberal"or öbama supporter (i meant to make scare quotes, but an umlaut came out instead. i like umlauts. mötörhead, for example)
the second is to imply that there is a rational basis for equating obama with facism because all fascism means to you is i don't like it---well that's just a stupid argument. there were perfectly legit and worrisome reasons to see in the bush administration between 9/13/2001 and sometimes in early 2005 a political/legal machine that was heading in a fascist direction--and this in a technical sense--because like it or not there is a technical sense to the term. the move foundered politically sometime in 2005 because the discourse lost traction. as a legal movement--that is as a radical authoritarian rightwing politics advanced through the means of law---what the bush people did is only being dismantled now by the obama administration. and if you think about what that legal framework was, pan, it's some scary shit.
but hey, why bother with that when you can reduce fascism to a meme used in what you reduce political debate to--playground stuff, the kind of thing that third graders indulge.
but it is that when participants make it that--and so in this case, you bear a pretty significant responsibility for reducing debate to the level you claim it already was on.

third is repetition. it's as if you think that repeating the same thing enough times erases the baselessness of what you repeat.
it's a very karlrove idea, except you don't have the institutional reach to actually do it, so it's just silly.

i'm not sure how much more life there is in the thread, but personally i'm starting to see it as a corpse already.

Carrying debt does not equal deficit.

Ok.... and I'm the only one? I don't believe I have but ok.


Facism is facism.... I screamed about it with Bush but I don't believe I have said anything like that about Obama, if I have feel free to remind me where. And how I am now being hypocritical.

And yes, it has been on that level because when people criticized Bush (myself included), it was taken to that level... and not just by me.

Maybe, just maybe, I'm repetitive because I'm consistent in my views. Right or wrong, I am consistent and firm in my beliefs so therefore maybe, just maybe that would make me as harsh on my side as on the other because I believe my side should stand more on their merits and beliefs because if those beliefs are the "best" way... then attacks and so on shouldn't phase them.

Then it's a corpse to you and you don't have to post or read any more of mine if you find them so boorish.

Just got back from my local one. Smaller turnout than I expected maybe 2000 people but that's just a guess. Similar demographic as in the other tea parties. The highlight was Alan Keyes's speech. I got some footage and might post it later although nothing too exciting happened.

The only counter-protest thing I saw was a communist activist handing out some literature.

This tea party group seems rather lethargic and unmotived compared to say a ron paul rally or other ones I've seen. It's a start though I suppose as most of this crowd seems like they've never done this sort of thing before.

The highlight was an Alan Keyes speech? And people are trying to say this is non-partisan?

It is what it is. If you were hoping the tea parties were about expanding the social welfare state or ending the wars in Iraq you'd be at the wrong demonstration. However, if you were a individual who was concerned about the increasing taxes and governmental spending there would be a place for you.

Increasing taxes happened under Bush, as did spending. Taxes are going down and the bailout isn't actually spending. The people I ran into at the SJ Tea Party didn't seem to comprehend any of this. They were more concerned with "USA! USA! USA!" or anti-Obama rhetoric.

Aren't taxes going down for all but the top 3% earners?

Income tax, yes. Some are protesting any tax increase (cigarettes, for example), but I'd be willing to guess that many at these parties still believe that Obama is raising everyone's taxes. It's amazing how easily misinformation spreads.

---------- Post added at 09:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

My favorite political cartoon from the past few days:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lm2JI7sGwY...an+concern.jpg

Pretty much. But when you look at the income tax of the top earners, as well as the capital gains tax, the net effect is that of the Bush cuts expiring on schedule (2011).

So far, these tea parties appear to be a movement to benefit the rich, using the not-so-rich as leverage.

Nice. Is this a typical Republican technique?

I wish it were just Republican. The Dems do it, too.

Yes, but I don't remember hearing about Dems getting people to fight for tax cuts that won't effect those who support the idea. What is the Democrat equivalent?

The Democrats are as much slaves to their corporate benefactors as the Republicans. They often get "the people" to support obvious ploys for business, such as retroactive immunity for telecoms, support for wasteful spending, and the like. Still, I'm not sure if there's an equivalent to the Tea Parties. Most major protests on the left are surprisingly grassroots.

Democrats ended AFDC...

it's all a huge pyramid scheme, where the rich convince the middle class that they too will be rich someday if they a) support the tax cuts on the wealthy, b) pull themselves up by their bootstraps and c) thumb their nose at the poor.

I think that was done by a deal with the GOP controlled Congress. They didn't end it as much as remake into another program. The new program focused on getting people to work and limited benefits to something like 5yrs. Don't ask me what the new program's called, I can't remember.

---------- Post added at 09:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 AM ----------

I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of the teabaggers are going to pay less taxes under Obama then they did with Bush Jr.

I also think many of them should look up the definition of fascist. I could understand them calling Obama a socialist, but his proposals don't fit what I understand to be fascism at all. I'd argue Bush Jr. was much closer to a fascist then Obama.

All the interviews I saw seemed to have people protesting all kinds of stuff but mainly just their dislike for Obama.