Does the GOP Conservative,really believe in the U.S.Constitution ?

[oncewas]

Do the GOP Conservative believe in the Constitution only when it suit their agenda,or for what the Constitution really means? Do the GOP think the founding Fathers got it wrong when they wrote the U.S.Constitution ?3

 

[Reformedfindlay]

The GOP appears to have a better understanding of the constitution (on a broader scale) than the democrats but in the end still has an incomplete understanding.

Look towards the libertarian party for an even more complete understanding...

Also, there is no poll even though this is in the polls section.

 

[OrphanSlug]

It sure seems like political convenience when the Constitution is important or not, and that appears to apply to both (D) and (R) depending upon the subject we are talking about.

Speak of, which issue are you talking about?

 

[iliveonramen]

Do the GOP Conservative believe in the Constitution only when it suit their agenda,or for what the Constitution really means? Do the GOP think the founding Fathers got it wrong when they wrote the U.S.Constitution ?3

Of course...let's go ahead and state the ways Republicans open the door to certain actions that Republicans now call "un-Constitutional" when done by Democrats....

Republican passed the Bush tax cuts through reconciliation...it was strictly a vote on Partisan lines and due to the huge cost actually had to have a 10 year sunset rule to not violate the Byrd Rule. No peep from the right.
The ACA going through the same process? Biggest slap in the face of the founders.

Bush administration stated that an executive agreement without Senate approval was kosher when discussing a long term status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government which could commit US troops in Iraq for the long term. Republicans? Defended the administrations statement.
Now? Obama's executive agreement is super overreach because Congress has to be apart of any major agreement.

Hillary Clinton using personnel email? She's probably up to something devious and she should be in deep water.
Bush administration firing a large amount of attorney's based on suspected political motivations and then come to find out all the email traffic was on private accounts and deleted and purged? Oh, yeah...not a peep.

There's no doubt the right wraps themselves in the constitution one moment then tears it up when they are in charge.

 

[Visbek]

Do the GOP Conservative believe in the Constitution only when it suit their agenda,or for what the Constitution really means?

I'd say a little of both.

Everyone plucks what they want from the Constitution and related documents (e.g. DoI, Articles of Confederation) and ignore what is inconvenient. Everyone accuses their political opponents of constitutional infidelity when it's convenient. This has been the case almost since day one.

Do the GOP think the founding Fathers got it wrong when they wrote the U.S.Constitution ?3

No, they ignore inconvenient principles when required, as does everyone else.

 

[Visbek]

The GOP appears to have a better understanding of the constitution (on a broader scale) than the democrats but in the end still has an incomplete understanding. Look towards the libertarian party for an even more complete understanding...

lol

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. The ratifiers of the Constitution weren't libertarians; many of them, notably Washington and Hamilton, explicitly wrote the Constitution in order to develop a stronger central government than under the Articles of Confederation. They also passed the Alien and Sedition acts very early on, laws I doubt most libertarians would support.

While it is obviously not radically malleable, in many ways the Constitution is a political Rorschach Test. People have an amazing ability to pluck out of it what they want, and accuse others of infidelity to its sacred tenets which only they can divine.

 

[CMPancake]

It's pretty common place for just abotu anyone to ignore the Constitution when it is a detriment and preach it when it suits their political ends.

 

[clownboy]

lol

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. The ratifiers of the Constitution weren't libertarians; many of them, notably Washington and Hamilton, explicitly wrote the Constitution in order to develop a stronger central government than under the Articles of Confederation. They also passed the Alien and Sedition acts very early on, laws I doubt most libertarians would support.

While it is obviously not radically malleable, in many ways the Constitution is a political Rorschach Test. People have an amazing ability to pluck out of it what they want, and accuse others of infidelity to its sacred tenets which only they can divine.

I agree with that somewhat, but this 'anything you want it to be' Constitution is a recent thing. It's the whole "living document" movement that has totally untethered the SCOTUS from their oath.

But just for accuracy, it was Madison who wrote the bulk of the Constitution and we can see the debate of contributors to the writing in the Federalist Papers. So if you want to go off any founder's view, it should probably be Madison.

 

[Helix]

Do the GOP Conservative believe in the Constitution only when it suit their agenda,or for what the Constitution really means? Do the GOP think the founding Fathers got it wrong when they wrote the U.S.Constitution ?3

both sides use it to push their own agendas and forget about it when it's inconvenient. Republicans talk about it a lot more right now, but that's because they don't currently occupy the White House. during the next Republican administration, left wing constitutional scholars will come crawling out of the woodwork again.

 

[LowDown]

Of course...let's go ahead and state the ways Republicans open the door to certain actions that Republicans now call "un-Constitutional" when done by Democrats....

Republican passed the Bush tax cuts through reconciliation...it was strictly a vote on Partisan lines and due to the huge cost actually had to have a 10 year sunset rule to not violate the Byrd Rule. No peep from the right.
The ACA going through the same process? Biggest slap in the face of the founders.

Bush administration stated that an executive agreement without Senate approval was kosher when discussing a long term status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government which could commit US troops in Iraq for the long term. Republicans? Defended the administrations statement.
Now? Obama's executive agreement is super overreach because Congress has to be apart of any major agreement.

Hillary Clinton using personnel email? She's probably up to something devious and she should be in deep water.
Bush administration firing a large amount of attorney's based on suspected political motivations and then come to find out all the email traffic was on private accounts and deleted and purged? Oh, yeah...not a peep.

There's no doubt the right wraps themselves in the constitution one moment then tears it up when they are in charge.

A vote by reconciliation and email violations are not constitutional issues.

The president may sign an agreement, but it's only good so long as he is President. What the Republicans are saying is that agreements that Obama signs will only last as long as he is President unless the Senate votes to make it a formal treaty. The same applied to Bush.

 

[Montecresto]

Do the GOP Conservative believe in the Constitution only when it suit their agenda,or for what the Constitution really means? Do the GOP think the founding Fathers got it wrong when they wrote the U.S.Constitution ?3

Partisans, either side, believe in the constitution, but not as much as they believe in their party.

 

[Montecresto]

both sides use it to push their own agendas and forget about it when it's inconvenient. Republicans talk about it a lot more right now, but that's because they don't currently occupy the White House. during the next Republican administration, left wing constitutional scholars will come crawling out of the woodwork again.

Agreed. And Jonathan Turley never crawled into the woodwork.

 

[LowDown]

Do the GOP Conservative believe in the Constitution only when it suit their agenda,or for what the Constitution really means? Do the GOP think the founding Fathers got it wrong when they wrote the U.S.Constitution ?3

Much of the disagreement comes from interpretation of the Constitution. If Republicans disagree with you about what the commerce clause means it doesn't mean that they are not following the Constitution.

IMHO the SCOTUS ran off the rails with the commerce clause 80 or so years ago and so now we are up to our eyeballs in federal laws and regulations over matters that ought to be the purview of the state and local governments, like what the freaking school lunch menu should be.

 

[Helix]

Agreed. And Jonathan Turley never crawled into the woodwork.

some didn't.

 

[AGENT J]

Well grouping all of the GOP is silly because many of them believe different things
Look at the gay rights issue, millions of them support it and reference the constitution while many also don't

so they cant be grouped together

but in general many people (no matter party), treat the constitution like they do religion or own self morals. "I like what is on this page or in this right or passage etc and I dont like this one, or I dont like it applied to people i dont like etc and they pick and choose.

Basically this below:

both sides use it to push their own agendas and forget about it when it's inconvenient. Republicans talk about it a lot more right now, but that's because they don't currently occupy the White House. during the next Republican administration, left wing constitutional scholars will come crawling out of the woodwork again.

and this will always continue . . . .

 

[iliveonramen]

A vote by reconciliation and email violations are not constitutional issues.

The president may sign an agreement, but it's only good so long as he is President. What the Republicans are saying is that agreements that Obama signs will only last as long as he is President unless the Senate votes to make it a formal treaty. The same applied to Bush.

Unconstitutional Procedure Being Used to Pass Unconstitutional ObamaCare - Breitbart

The Right Strikes Back: A New Legal Challenge for Obamacare

Say, doesn’t the Constitution require tax bills to originate in the House? « Hot Air

Constitution Be Damned - ObamaCare Vote Next Week | RedState

I could go through many more Conservative commentary on the unconstitutionality of using the reconciliation process, not to mention the second link is conservative groups challenging the law in court based on reconciliation.

What Hillary Clinton's email fail tells us: Cybersecurity begins at home | Fox News

I could find more on Hillary as well but this article starts with "constitutionality aside..."

As for the second part....sure! There's no doubt that's the case. There's also no doubt there are avenues Congress can use to challenge the agreement through the legislative process (though post letter I doubt any Dems will play ball). That hasn't stopped the typical unconstitutional yells from the right though.

 

[Linc]

There's no question reconciliation is a tactic that McConnell will use this year.
The Senate Parliamentarian has directly given permission and GOPs are just deciding what to use it on, since it appears it can only be used once.

As we've seen with the House, the GOP has two caucuses, the Freedom Caucus and the AAN/Elites.
A stalemate that has frozen DC since the GOP took the House in 2011.

We will continue to have showdowns, such as with the doc fix this month, the debt ceiling soon after, and the transportation trust fund going bankrupt in May.
The attempt to add Keystone to the Transportation/Infrastructure Bill is certainly a GOP talking point right now .

Of course...let's go ahead and state the ways Republicans open the door to certain actions that Republicans now call "un-Constitutional" when done by Democrats....

Republican passed the Bush tax cuts through reconciliation...it was strictly a vote on Partisan lines and due to the huge cost actually had to have a 10 year sunset rule to not violate the Byrd Rule. No peep from the right.
The ACA going through the same process? Biggest slap in the face of the founders.

Bush administration stated that an executive agreement without Senate approval was kosher when discussing a long term status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government which could commit US troops in Iraq for the long term. Republicans? Defended the administrations statement.
Now? Obama's executive agreement is super overreach because Congress has to be apart of any major agreement.

Hillary Clinton using personnel email? She's probably up to something devious and she should be in deep water.
Bush administration firing a large amount of attorney's based on suspected political motivations and then come to find out all the email traffic was on private accounts and deleted and purged? Oh, yeah...not a peep.

There's no doubt the right wraps themselves in the constitution one moment then tears it up when they are in charge.

 

[joG]

The GOP appears to have a better understanding of the constitution (on a broader scale) than the democrats but in the end still has an incomplete understanding.

Look towards the libertarian party for an even more complete understanding...

Also, there is no poll even though this is in the polls section.

Of course, there is a poll now.

 

[Visbek]

I agree with that somewhat, but this 'anything you want it to be' Constitution is a recent thing. It's the whole "living document" movement that has totally untethered the SCOTUS from their oath.

I must politely disagree. Consider the Sedition Act of 1789:

"SECTION II. Punishes seditious writings.
1. Definition of offence:
To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.
2. Grade of offence:
A misdemeanour.
3. Punishment:
Fine not exceeding $2000, and imprisonment not exceeding two years.

Can you imagine the outrage if this was passed today? People would be screaming about the violation of freedom of speech. And yet, this was passed shortly after the Constitution was ratified.

But just for accuracy, it was Madison who wrote the bulk of the Constitution and we can see the debate of contributors to the writing in the Federalist Papers. So if you want to go off any founder's view, it should probably be Madison.

The Constitution was written at the Constitutional Convention. There were 30-40 people attending daily, for almost 4 months. It also had to be ratified by the entire nation, a process that required descriptions in the Federalist Papers.

Madison was the primary author of the Bill of Rights. However, those amendments had to be ratified by the entire nation. We also have no idea what Madison would genuinely say about the modern world

So, whose understanding matter here? Is it only the people who wrote it? The people who ratified it? The judges and public today?

And how easy is it, really, to apply 200+ year old Constitutional provisions to the modern world? Just the other day, Jeb Bush thought it was crazy to apply a 1936 communications law to the Internet -- yet presumably, he has no problems applying principles crafted 1787. Seems a bit selective to me.

 

[Oozlefinch]

A vote by reconciliation and email violations are not constitutional issues.

The president may sign an agreement, but it's only good so long as he is President. What the Republicans are saying is that agreements that Obama signs will only last as long as he is President unless the Senate votes to make it a formal treaty. The same applied to Bush.

That is the biggest problem with "Legislation through Executive Order". It is essentially no different then a "Recess Appointment" by a President.

The President has a great many powers, but without Congressional Approval, the vast majority of them are temporary. And once he or she leaves office they can become null and void by the next President. That is what the entire issue the last several years with the expanding use of Executive Orders has been about, and the letter to Iran. Iran is not the United States, and members of Congress were simply reiterating that only Congress has the right to ratify a treaty that extends beyond the term of a single President.

President Obama can sign any agreement with Iran that he wants, but it will have no effect in law unless Congress ratifys it.

 

[Helix]

Well grouping all of the GOP is silly because many of them believe different things
Look at the gay rights issue, millions of them support it and reference the constitution while many also don't

so they cant be grouped together

but in general many people (no matter party), treat the constitution like they do religion or own self morals. "I like what is on this page or in this right or passage etc and I dont like this one, or I dont like it applied to people i dont like etc and they pick and choose.

Basically this below:


and this will always continue . . . .

yep, pretty much. none of us are completely innocent of doing this, including me.

 

[LowDown]

Unconstitutional Procedure Being Used to Pass Unconstitutional ObamaCare - Breitbart

The Right Strikes Back: A New Legal Challenge for Obamacare

Say, doesn’t the Constitution require tax bills to originate in the House? « Hot Air

Constitution Be Damned - ObamaCare Vote Next Week | RedState

I could go through many more Conservative commentary on the unconstitutionality of using the reconciliation process, not to mention the second link is conservative groups challenging the law in court based on reconciliation.

What Hillary Clinton's email fail tells us: Cybersecurity begins at home | Fox News

I could find more on Hillary as well but this article starts with "constitutionality aside..."

As for the second part....sure! There's no doubt that's the case. There's also no doubt there are avenues Congress can use to challenge the agreement through the legislative process (though post letter I doubt any Dems will play ball). That hasn't stopped the typical unconstitutional yells from the right though.

You are confusing reconciliation with the fact that spending bills have to originate in the House. Reconciliation is a means to pass budget bills in the Senate without a 60 vote margin. That's a matter of Senate rules, not the Constitution.

 

[tres borrachos]

It's pretty common place for just abotu anyone to ignore the Constitution when it is a detriment and preach it when it suits their political ends.

You beat me to it.

 

[AGENT J]

yep, pretty much. none of us are completely innocent of doing this, including me.

I agree, I can't think of a topic Ive done it on but Im sure I have or at least minimum, I dont fight as equally hard against things I feel violate the constitution. A good example would be my concealed weapons permit.
Im totally for gun rights and Ill freely admit that by the constitution that shouldn't be a restriction but as along as its easy like mine was i dont really get and all frazzled by it.

 

[clownboy]

I must politely disagree. Consider the Sedition Act of 1789:

"SECTION II. Punishes seditious writings.
1. Definition of offence:
To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.
2. Grade of offence:
A misdemeanour.
3. Punishment:
Fine not exceeding $2000, and imprisonment not exceeding two years.

Can you imagine the outrage if this was passed today? People would be screaming about the violation of freedom of speech. And yet, this was passed shortly after the Constitution was ratified.



The Constitution was written at the Constitutional Convention. There were 30-40 people attending daily, for almost 4 months. It also had to be ratified by the entire nation, a process that required descriptions in the Federalist Papers.

Madison was the primary author of the Bill of Rights. However, those amendments had to be ratified by the entire nation. We also have no idea what Madison would genuinely say about the modern world

So, whose understanding matter here? Is it only the people who wrote it? The people who ratified it? The judges and public today?

And how easy is it, really, to apply 200+ year old Constitutional provisions to the modern world? Just the other day, Jeb Bush thought it was crazy to apply a 1936 communications law to the Internet -- yet presumably, he has no problems applying principles crafted 1787. Seems a bit selective to me.

Again, I agree and a lot of what you say is accurate. However, as to the bolded part, that's where the kludge of the living document BS comes in. The Constitution was set up to require generational maintenance. That's what the amendment process is all about. We, as a nation, failed to do our due diligence in keeping step between the Constitution and changing times. Instead we allowed the SCOTUS to take the power to shortcut the process and make the changes themselves through re-interpretation.