• 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!

Constitutional Crisis

Prof_Lunaphiles

Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
586
Reaction score
56
Location
Transient
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
When the people obligated to defend the Constitution claim there is a constitutional crisis, then that means there is a constitutional crisis. It is very precarious to allow the politicians to use this term lightly - very precarious.
 
When the people obligated to defend the Constitution claim there is a constitutional crisis, then that means there is a constitutional crisis. It is very precarious to allow the politicians to use this term lightly - very precarious.
Is someone?
 
When the people obligated to defend the Constitution claim there is a constitutional crisis, then that means there is a constitutional crisis. It is very precarious to allow the politicians to use this term lightly - very precarious.

Red:
....One that's exacerbated should thus obliged individuals not defend the constitution with swift, incisive and overwhelming action taken against those who caused the constitutional crisis.
 
When the people obligated to defend the Constitution claim there is a constitutional crisis, then that means there is a constitutional crisis. It is very precarious to allow the politicians to use this term lightly - very precarious.

Considering many public events in recent history, the term "constitutional crisis" has come to lose all meaning, just like the word "terrorist" has.

This Russiagate fallout may have brought such a crisis, but it pales in comparison to legislation passed by our elected representative that blatantly undermines the Constitution. The patriot act directly attacks the 4th Amendment, but the talking heads and credulous public do not talk about that crisis.

This is all theater, nothing more. The government is rotten to the core, and has been for years.
 
Red:
....One that's exacerbated should thus obliged individuals not defend the constitution with swift, incisive and overwhelming action taken against those who caused the constitutional crisis.
Sure; but I think such reasoning avoids understanding the underlying problem - the political leaders have identified an inadequacy of the Constitution. They are not describing it as, "corruption," they are describing it as, "constitutional crisis," implying that there is a problem with the Constitution that supersedes their ability to prosecute corruption.

Don't get me wrong. I do not doubt that the Trump Administration is determined to expose the inadequacies with the Constitution by doing what it is they are doing that leads you to suspect that the Trump Administration is corrupt. But I also believe that the leadership, including Speaker Pelosi, are all aware that the Constitution is inadequate and needs to be reordered; but they cannot do so, because they are obligated to defend it.
 
Sure; but I think such reasoning avoids understanding the underlying problem - the political leaders have identified an inadequacy of the Constitution. They are not describing it as, "corruption," they are describing it as, "constitutional crisis," implying that there is a problem with the Constitution that supersedes their ability to prosecute corruption.

Don't get me wrong. I do not doubt that the Trump Administration is determined to expose the inadequacies with the Constitution by doing what it is they are doing that leads you to suspect that the Trump Administration is corrupt. But I also believe that the leadership, including Speaker Pelosi, are all aware that the Constitution is inadequate and needs to be reordered; but they cannot do so, because they are obligated to defend it.

Red:
The Constitution isn't inadequate to the task. The people charged with exercising its provisions are of inadequate measures of probity for the task they've been entrusted to perform. Changing the law may meanly mitigate for their inaptness thus, but so long as elected office holders are of a mind to place party primacy and pride over country, there will be no amelioration of the the application of the Constitution's provisions.
 
The Constitution isn't inadequate to the task.
And you believe this to be true, because everybody tells you it is a perfect organization order for a large government that can be adjusted by amendments???
:lamo

The people charged with exercising its provisions are of inadequate measures of probity for the task they've been entrusted to perform.
And how did that happen??? Voters are all messed-up in the head, because they don't understand the importance of offices, or constitution; or are the candidates all inadequate, because they . . .

Changing the law may meanly mitigate for their inaptness thus, but so long as elected office holders are of a mind to place party primacy and pride over country, there will be no amelioration of the the application of the Constitution's provisions.
What does this word salad mean???
 
When the people obligated to defend the Constitution claim there is a constitutional crisis, then that means there is a constitutional crisis. It is very precarious to allow the politicians to use this term lightly - very precarious.

All that means is that they themselves don't understand the Constitution. When Rep. Nader called this a "Constitutional Crises" over AG Ball not giving them the full Mueller Report is nothing but "theatrics" to try and get the people upset, Nader knows full well what he is asking can not be given to them under federal law. If Nader doesn't like that then they need to change the law. They need to understand what the first sentence in Article II means and if they don't like the unconstitutional power that they themselves have given to the President then they should take that power back instead of whining about it.
 
When the people obligated to defend the Constitution claim there is a constitutional crisis, then that means there is a constitutional crisis..

Not when there is no constitutional crisis. Just like with any grand jury info Nadler simply needs to petition the court to have the material released. Noticed how they havent done that yet. If Nadler did so and the court rejected his request, he would demonstrate to all that there never was any crisis. If they believe the president has comitted a crime, the Constitution provides the remedy. Impeachment. Notice how the democratically controlled Congress hasnt done so yet? For the same reason they havent petitioned the court for the grand jury info.
 
You are both describing the constitutional crisis - they are apt to propose legislative reaction to the situation that you are describing.
 
You are both describing the constitutional crisis - they are apt to propose legislative reaction to the situation that you are describing.

If they can remedy their Constitutional crisis with legislation, they demonstrate for all that their so called constitutional crisis was nothing but a legislative crisis of their own doing.
 
When the people obligated to defend the Constitution claim there is a constitutional crisis, then that means there is a constitutional crisis. It is very precarious to allow the politicians to use this term lightly - very precarious.

I cannot agree with your premise. Simply because it is said there is a constitutional crisis does not make it so.
 
Sure; but I think such reasoning avoids understanding the underlying problem - the political leaders have identified an inadequacy of the Constitution. They are not describing it as, "corruption," they are describing it as, "constitutional crisis," implying that there is a problem with the Constitution that supersedes their ability to prosecute corruption.

Don't get me wrong. I do not doubt that the Trump Administration is determined to expose the inadequacies with the Constitution by doing what it is they are doing that leads you to suspect that the Trump Administration is corrupt. But I also believe that the leadership, including Speaker Pelosi, are all aware that the Constitution is inadequate and needs to be reordered; but they cannot do so, because they are obligated to defend it.

And how exactly is the Constitution outmoded?
 
When the people obligated to defend the Constitution claim there is a constitutional crisis, then that means there is a constitutional crisis.

There is a crisis only because liberals oppose the Constitution and thus treasonously interpret it to mean any socialist thing they want it to mean. Patriotic conservatives don't interpret it, they merely read it as they are supposed to.
 
But I also believe that the leadership, including Speaker Pelosi, are all aware that the Constitution is inadequate and needs to be reordered; but they cannot do so, because they are obligated to defend it.

Pure lunacy I'm afraid. We live in a post Constitutional period according to many conservatives because liberals have had no trouble whatsoever treasonously reordering the Constitution to suit their socialist aspirations. Do you understand?
 
If the (as yet defined) crisis has any remote connection to the regulation of commerce, is an any way effected by taxation or can possibly be construed to promote the welfare of a general then it is constitutional unless specifically and temporarily overridden by our nine robed umpires using the most narrow ruling possible for the case brought before them (should they choose to address that matter).
 
If the (as yet defined) crisis has any remote connection to the regulation of commerce, is an any way effected by taxation or can possibly be construed to promote the welfare of a general then it is constitutional unless specifically and temporarily overridden by our nine robed umpires using the most narrow ruling possible for the case brought before them (should they choose to address that matter).

Your interpretation renders federal powers unbridled and obviates federalism. If it obviated federalism, it cannot be an accurate interpretation of our Constitution, which codified federalism.
 
Your interpretation renders federal powers unbridled and obviates federalism. If it obviated federalism, it cannot be an accurate interpretation of our Constitution, which codified federalism.

What? federalism is about power sharing between states and feds but it does not say what the balance ought to be. Do you understand?
 
Pure lunacy I'm afraid. We live in a post Constitutional period according to many conservatives because liberals have had no trouble whatsoever treasonously reordering the Constitution to suit their socialist aspirations. Do you understand?

This is some really good right wing gibberish Mr. Calhoun.
 
This is some really good right wing gibberish Mr. Calhoun.

oh no this is really some good right wing common sense!!

( this is a liberal's idea of debate)
 
When the people obligated to defend the Constitution claim there is a constitutional crisis, then that means there is a constitutional crisis. It is very precarious to allow the politicians to use this term lightly - very precarious.

Can the phrase "the people" relate to just one person who can unilaterally oppose his goverment with lethal force if he sees fit ?



You know like Lee Harvey Oswald and Timothy McVeigh did.
 
When the people obligated to defend the Constitution claim there is a constitutional crisis, then that means there is a constitutional crisis. It is very precarious to allow the politicians to use this term lightly - very precarious.

Which people are "obligated to defend the Constitution"


And when has a Constitutional crisis been declared and over what ?
 
When the people obligated to defend the Constitution claim there is a constitutional crisis,

when did they claim that? what was the crisis? Do you have any idea??
 
when did they claim that? what was the crisis? Do you have any idea??

The question was asked?

"When the people obligated to defend the Constitution claim there is a constitutional crisis"

Can you answer ?
 
The question was asked?

"When the people obligated to defend the Constitution claim there is a constitutional crisis"

Can you answer ?

answer what?? The silly liberal clean forgot to say.
 
Back
Top Bottom