REPOST: How Tyranny Came to America [re: Constitutionalism 101]

Constitution Party / www.constitutionparty.org ^ | 2000 | Joseph Sobran

[Southack]

"But I've made my points so now it's up to you to be part of the solution to the endless encroachment of the federal government on States rights without constitutional amendments or part of the problem."

Your core mistake is that you want existing law to be re-interpreted to grant you the style of government that you favor.

That's not how life works. We have a great system. If you want to change the way it works today, then you'll have to convince enough people to vote for that change.

...but pretending that your personal view is already law isn't going to make that change happen.

[Southack]

"I'm saying that the clause you posted doesn't give any power to the government other than to tax, and to use the taxes to pay for the powers listed elsewhere."

Can you name a *single* federal judge who has agreed with your above-mentioned opinion in the last 200 years?

[Sofa King]

"Can you name a *single* federal judge who has agreed with your above-mentioned opinion in the last 200 years?"

In other words, you've given up trying to attack my position on rational grounds and are now going for the bandwagon approach. In my book, that's means that I've won the debate.

Since the whole point of the original article was to say that the constitution is being ignored, and that federal judges aren't doing what they are put in place to do, whether or not federal judges agree with me isn't relevant. I don't let others do my thinking for me.

[Yeti]

You seem to have a selective reading disorder.

In an earlier post I specifically differentiated between the general well-being of the nation as a whole and the precise well-being of a specific individual citizen.

It's plain that you are choosing to be intentionally obtuse. And you are doing so because confessing that you understand what I have said does not suit your ulterior motive, which is to persuade ignorant people that there is a constitutional basis for a "welfare state."

The first fallacy you employ is amphiboly. You have detached the word "welfare" from the meaning it had when the document was written, and attempted to attach to it the meaning that has been assigned it by popular culture in the last 30 years.

In this way, you hope to surreptitiously insert a new meaning into the old document.

An example of this error might be as follows:

In past times, the word "faggot" meant a bundle of kindling. Nowadays it is used as an epithet for homosexuals. Using your technique, a gay historical revisionist might point to a passage in a work of literature that makes reference to getting "a faggot to burn" as evidence of past homosexual oppression.

Similarly, the word "fag" used to mean a cigarette in Britain. A competing gay historical revisionist might point to another passage in which a couple of british military guys "step outside to share a fag" as proof that homosexuality was common and accepted among the British military.

Likewise yourself and "welfare." This in addition to your problems with "general" and "the United States" as opposed to "the People," which is how the people are referenced elsewhere in the document.

[Southack]

"The first fallacy you employ is amphiboly. You have detached the word "welfare" from the meaning it had when the document was written, and attempted to attach to it the meaning that has been assigned it by popular culture in the last 30 years."

Nonsense. I asked *you* to give your definition of the general welfare clause.

[PuNcH]

Our biggest problem to start with is the public education system. I dont see a whole lot of "conservatives" or republicans who intend to do anything significant about it. Most seem more than ready to simply hand their children over to socialist indoctrination.

I think things are going to get alot worse before they get better. If they ever do get better.

[Southack]

"In other words, you've given up trying to attack my position on rational grounds and are now going for the bandwagon approach. ... Since the whole point of the original article was to say that the constitution is being ignored, and that federal judges aren't doing what they are put in place to do, whether or not federal judges agree with me isn't relevant."

That's utter rubbish. I've given nothing up, but rather simply asked you to substantiate some *authority*, in fact *any* authority, in the last 200+ years (for your claim as to your own unique interpretation of our Constitution that seems to leave whole parts of that document out due to your inferred redundancy).

[Yeti]

I asked *you* to give your definition of the general welfare clause.

And I did. I notice you didn't have a comment about that.

Furthermore, I'ts not for him who makes such bold assertions to insist that others justify their disagreement. It is you who has insisted on an interpreted meaning of the clause, it is for you to defend your position.

[Sofa King]

"That's utter rubbish. I've given nothing up, but rather simply asked you to substantiate some *authority*, in fact *any* authority, in the last 200+ years (for your claim as to your own unique interpretation of our Constitution that seems to leave whole parts of that document out due to your inferred redundancy)."

Are you retarded or something? I just got finished telling you that federal judges AREN'T_DOING_THIER_JOB. ie, what their rulings say and what they SHOULD say don't match up. THAT'S the problem. Also, I'm not leaving out a thing. You're the one pretending that Article 1 section 8 clauses 2-18 don't exist.

[Southack]

"I just got finished telling you that federal judges AREN'T_DOING_THIER_JOB. ie, what their rulings say and what they SHOULD say don't match up. THAT'S the problem."

That's an interesting opinion, but no one in authority in any of the past 200 years seems to agree with you, and considering the numerous disagreements among federal judges over the years, that's saying something.

Frankly, the more reasonable answer is *not* that you are sane and the rest of the world is crazy, but that you are the one in error here...

[Southack]

"The first fallacy you employ is amphiboly. You have detached the word "welfare" from the meaning it had when the document was written, and attempted to attach to it the meaning that has been assigned it by popular culture in the last 30 years." - Yeti

Nonsense. I asked *you* to give your definition of the general welfare clause. - Southack

"And I did. I notice you didn't have a comment about that."

Whew, talk about straying from the point! Your claim above is that I was being ambiguous, even though you agree that I actually asked *you* for *your* definition to avoid any amphiboly, and somehow you reply with "I notice you didn't have a comment about that."

Oh please...

[Sofa King]

"That's an interesting opinion, but no one in authority in any of the past 200 years seems to agree with you, and considering the numerous disagreements among federal judges over the years, that's saying something."

You know you're debating a liberal when your opponent pretends to be omniscient. Hell, if you'd just read the article you'd see that there were justices who wouldn't let Roosevelt do what he wanted (thus agreeing with me), but I guess it's just easier for you to claim to know what is in the heart and mind of every justice ever appointed.

Besides, if precedent made right then slavery would be right.

"Frankly, the more reasonable answer is *not* that you are sane and the rest of the world is crazy, but that you are the one in error here..."

No, the reasonable answer is that you're full of it and you're trying to throw up a smokescreen to obfuscate the debate.

[Yeti]

No Southack, you began by asserting that the article to which you referred justifies social giveaway programs such as social security, etc...

You still haven't given us a map of the path you took from the words to your conclusion, and I'm not holding my breath.

I think I have done a pretty good job of justfying my opinion, even though I really don't think I am obliged to do so.

Put up or shut up now.

How do justify your interpretation?

[Magoo]

I agree. I will forward this article to 40 people tonight. Only one will read it. I am a victim of a public education, but after reading Rand, Friedman, Bork, Sowell, Buchanon, Hayek, Fallaci et al, I am very cynical about the future of the Government by the People. Oops, I mean The Peoples State of America.

[Southack]

"Besides, if precedent made right then slavery would be right."

And there's yet another blow to your argument, as Slavery *was* legal, and took a Constitutional amendment to become abolished...

[Southack]

"I think I have done a pretty good job of justfying my opinion, even though I really don't think I am obliged to do so. Put up or shut up now. How do justify your interpretation?"

Well for starters, every federal judge in the last 200 years has agreed with me, not you, about the general welfare and common defense clause.

[Magoo]

That's an interesting opinion, but no one in authority in any of the past 200 years seems to agree with you...

That's because anyone who agrees that judges aren't doing their jobs, gets Borked just like Miguel Estrada.

[Southack]

"That's because anyone who agrees that judges aren't doing their jobs, gets Borked just like Miguel Estrada."

What evidence do you have to support that your opinion holds true over every one of the last 200 years?

I certainly don't buy your argument.

[Magoo]

From southack's homepage:

E-mail: DestroySocialism@EveryTurn.com Homepage:
Sorry, that's not my e-mail address, but rather my philosophy.

One wonders what his definition of socialism is.

[Lady Eileen]

bump