• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Constitution make liberalism illegal?

James972 said:
you show source(s) 10000 times less influential than Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan so how could they possibly define the word more accurately than Buckley Goldwater, Reagan the major figures of the conservative movement????.
Click to expand...

You really are afraid of reality aren't you?
 
Quag said:
You really are afraid of reality aren't you?
Click to expand...

1) reality is Buckley Reagan Goldwater are the most real and important conservatives of the last 100 years

2) you are too embarrassed to learn that common usage determines definition
 
James972 said:
1) reality is Buckley Reagan Goldwater are the most real and important conservatives of the last 100 years

2) you are too embarrassed to learn that common usage determines definition
Click to expand...

Reality is:
1. The definitions of Liberalism and conservatism are not what you want them to be
2. You arte wilfully ignorant and misinformed
3. You are afraid of reality
 
Quag said:
I posted more than just wiki links.
You posted no links to back up your fallacious claim, just a bit about the Democratic parties platform that didn't support your claim.
I backed up what I said you didn't even try to back up your BS
Click to expand...

If you need the Internet and a link to define modern liberalism and the Democratic Party vis-a-vis Classical Liberalism, this is probably not a subject for you.
 
Tennyson said:
If you need the Internet and a link to define modern liberalism and the Democratic Party vis-a-vis Classical Liberalism, this is probably not a subject for you.
Click to expand...

I am not defining the Democratic party, I am giving you the actual definition of Liberalism
You are incorrectly confusing the two and on top of that you are ignoring the actual definitions of the terms
 
Quag said:
I am not defining the Democratic party, I am giving you the actual definition of Liberalism
You are incorrectly confusing the two and on top of that you are ignoring the actual definitions of the terms
Click to expand...

An not only were your links incorrect, they contradicted themselves.
 
Tennyson said:
An not only were your links incorrect, they contradicted themselves.
Click to expand...

My links show the definition of Liberalism
You have no links or even an argument to defend your point of view
Sorry but Ill take Wikipedia, Oxford, Webster, dictionaries, Britannica encyclopedia etc Over some internet yahoo who cant even support his own position
 
Quag said:
My links show the definition of Liberalism
You have no links or even an argument to defend your point of view
Sorry but Ill take Wikipedia, Oxford, Webster, dictionaries, Britannica encyclopedia etc Over some internet yahoo who cant even support his own position
Click to expand...

Your links show what you opted to use from a Google search.
 
Tennyson said:
Your links show what you opted to use from a Google search.
Click to expand...
Still no attempt from you to back up your lies?
Gee what a surprise you cant defend your BS so you make pathetic and failed attacks on my documents proof.

Game over you lost long before it started
 
Quag said:
Still no attempt from you to back up your lies?
Gee what a surprise you cant defend your BS so you make pathetic and failed attacks on my documents proof.

Game over you lost long before it started
Click to expand...

I have made my point regarding your conflicting links and the misrepresentation of classical liberalism and modern liberalism.
 
James972 said:
best example is New Deal. It was a total liberal reconception of our govt and Supreme Court held it to be unconstitutional at first.
Click to expand...

So you plan not to collect Social Security? I kinda like it. I think the Supremes declared the National Recovery Act illegal, but otherwise found other parts of the New Deal to be ok. As I have said on other posts, people have turned to the federal govt when the states dropped the ball on things like lynching, discrimination, job safety, etc., or when things could be run more efficiently from Washington, like the EPA. No need to have the Voting Rights Act, for example, if Mississippi had respected the constitution.
 
Nickyjo said:
So you plan not to collect Social Security? I kinda like it. I think the Supremes declared the National Recovery Act illegal, but otherwise found other parts of the New Deal to be ok. As I have said on other posts, people have turned to the federal govt when the states dropped the ball on things like lynching, discrimination, job safety, etc., or when things could be run more efficiently from Washington, like the EPA. No need to have the Voting Rights Act, for example, if Mississippi had respected the constitution.
Click to expand...

All of the New Deal programs where ruled unconstitutional; after FDR rebuilt the court in his image, he ran them back through and they were miraculously constitutional.

You are presenting the United States as a unitary government; it is not.

Mississippi did not violate the Constitution.
 
James972 said:
Try to understand that if liberals put enough liberals on the Supreme Court they can declare communism constitutional. Make sense?
Click to expand...

You may have missed it, but communism is constitutional, the party legal. Reagan didn't understand that, which is why he foolishly tried to ban Angela Davis from teaching. A legal communist party has been around for decades, though I imagine dues have dried up, starting with revelations about Stalin's crimes through the fall of the Berlin Wall, and its opposition to Gorbachov's reforms.

But it's good to know the paranoia about it persists.
 
Tennyson said:
All of the New Deal programs where ruled unconstitutional; after FDR rebuilt the court in his image, he ran them back through and they were miraculously constitutional.

You are presenting the United States as a unitary government; it is not.

Mississippi did not violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...

By denying votes to blacks, it would appear that Miss. violated the 14th and 15th amendments, which of course are part of the Constitution. If I understand your comment about "unitary," we became so some time ago, about when we began to say "the United States is," as opposed to "the United States are." (And am I to assume that you think the hundreds of blacks lynched in, say, Mississippi, often in the presence of law enforcement, should not have been a federal concern?). As I understand it, FDR's court packing legislation attempting to increase the numbers of Supremes never passed, but otherwise the turnover in justices and their changed decisions on the New Deal was no different than the 1954 decision overturning the theory of separate but equal or Trump's appointments to the bench of people the Federalist Society thinks will decide things in a more conservative fashion. To the victor and all that.
 
Nickyjo said:
By denying votes to blacks, it would appear that Miss. violated the 14th and 15th amendments, which of course are part of the Constitution. If I understand your comment about "unitary," we became so some time ago, about when we began to say "the United States is," as opposed to "the United States are." (And am I to assume that you think the hundreds of blacks lynched in, say, Mississippi, often in the presence of law enforcement, should not have been a federal concern?). As I understand it, FDR's court packing legislation attempting to increase the numbers of Supremes never passed, but otherwise the turnover in justices and their changed decisions on the New Deal was no different than the 1954 decision overturning the theory of separate but equal or Trump's appointments to the bench of people the Federalist Society thinks will decide things in a more conservative fashion. To the victor and all that.
Click to expand...

If it violated the Fourteenth Amendment, there would be no Fifteenth Amendment. All of the post-Civil War reconstruction amendments violate the purpose of the Article V amendment process.

When exactly was the Constitution put in storage and the US become a unitary country?

FDR did not pack the courts via legislation, but after a few years and a few retirements, he was able to accomplish his goal of an anti-constitutional court.

Brown had zero constitutional basis, and the court was not shy about stating that their opinion had no constitutional basis in their opinion. Seperate but equal was not a theory, but was sanctioned by the Fourteenth Amendment and laws by the same Congress.
 
Nickyjo said:
You may have missed it, but communism is constitutional, the party legal. Reagan didn't understand that, which is why he foolishly tried to ban Angela Davis from teaching. A legal communist party has been around for decades, though I imagine dues have dried up, starting with revelations about Stalin's crimes through the fall of the Berlin Wall, and its opposition to Gorbachov's reforms.

But it's good to know the paranoia about it persists.
Click to expand...
The idea of communism maybe constitutional but if Joseph Stalin or Bernie Sanders try to get rid of the Senate or the house to consolidate government they would be arrested and put in jail .Now do you understand.Also it is actually unconstitutional for a communist to hold a federal office since they must take an oath to preserve and defend the constitution
 
Tennyson said:
I have made my point regarding your conflicting links and the misrepresentation of classical liberalism and modern liberalism.
Click to expand...

Do you and James share an office in the Kremlin?
 
Tennyson said:
If it violated the Fourteenth Amendment, there would be no Fifteenth Amendment. All of the post-Civil War reconstruction amendments violate the purpose of the Article V amendment process.

When exactly was the Constitution put in storage and the US become a unitary country?

FDR did not pack the courts via legislation, but after a few years and a few retirements, he was able to accomplish his goal of an anti-constitutional court.

Brown had zero constitutional basis, and the court was not shy about stating that their opinion had no constitutional basis in their opinion. Seperate but equal was not a theory, but was sanctioned by the Fourteenth Amendment and laws by the same Congress.
Click to expand...
yes the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review and it has power even beyond that because it makes laws in effect that are in no way related to any constitutional subject matter. Such as abortion. Liberals have given the cord for power of the executive branch and the Congress don’t have that is why the next supreme court nominee battle will be a battle to the death.
 
Quag said:
OP really really really needs to learn the meaning of the words Liberalism and conservatism
Being willfully ignorant is no excuse
Click to expand...

OP really really needs to go back to junior-high, start all over again and this time pay attention. Not only does he not understand liberalism and conservatism he hasn't a clue what this country and the Constitution are all about either.
 
Does the Constitution Make Liberalism Illegal?

James972 said:
Sure it does by restricting our government to a very few enumerated powers.
Click to expand...

Enumerated powers are what the government can do not who can do it. I can't believe someone is this ignorant. That 4 people think this is an intelligent post is simultaneously sad and scary.
 
Last edited:
James972 said:
Try to understand that if liberals put enough liberals on the Supreme Court they can declare communism constitutional. Make sense?
Click to expand...

The the Communist Party of the United States of America is legal. They usually field a presidential candidate. Should that candidate win the election they would be allowed to serve. Where dd you go to school and what were you doing instead of paying attention in Civics 101?
 
weaver2 said:
Should that candidate[a communist] win the election they would be allowed to serve.
Click to expand...

well, only if he lied when he took oath of office by swearing to defend Constitution he hated, and if no one sued him for for lying.
 
weaver2 said:
Why don't you look it up before you make wild bets you can't win and don't have the money to cover.
Click to expand...


"The the Communist Party of the United States of America is legal"?

Yes, it is legal but a liberal, Nazi, communist, fascist, socialist, monarchist etc cant legally hold office unless they lie while taking the oath of office during which they must pledge to defend the Constitution in which case they could in theory be sued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom