Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Time Magazine: Constitution Doesn't Limit Government, ObamaCare Constitutional
Newsbusters ^ | June 23, 2011 | Eric Ames

Posted on 06/24/2011 3:38:29 AM PDT by lowbridge

Regular readers of Time magazine this week found in their mailbox yet another pile of leftist tripe in the vein of "the Constitution is a living document." This week's cover article by managing editor Richard Stengel is a freak show of anti-Constitutional babble including an assertion that the Constitution was not intended to limit government: "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so...The truth is, the Constitution massively strengthened the central government of the U.S. for the simple reason that it established one where none had existed before."

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: absolutetrash; bias; bloodoftyrants; boycotttimewarner; constitution; cwii; democrats; dncmedia; donttreadonme; enemedia; fascistmedia; liberalfascism; liberalmedia; liberals; mediabias; obamacare; obamedia; pravdamedia; revisionisthistory; socialistdemocrats; sorosmedia; time; time4illegals; timelies; timemagvsamerica; timevasamerica; timevsconstitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-109 next last
To: lowbridge

Heard about this. Joe Klein’s magazine continues to swirl around the toilet bowl.


41 posted on 06/24/2011 4:50:36 AM PDT by sauropod (The truth shall make you free but first it will make you miserable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

“..how about you lesbos and fags in the media? Are you armed?”

They are called Police, they have guns and they do the bidding of their masters. They CAN in fact arrest you for calling someone a “fag”. It’s called a hate crime. The cops won’t hesitate to lock you up or shoot you if you dare to resist.


42 posted on 06/24/2011 5:01:48 AM PDT by TalBlack ( Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Ike

Hell I won’t even read it then.


43 posted on 06/24/2011 5:06:08 AM PDT by tal hajus (ever the cynic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Oh those boys at the onion again.


44 posted on 06/24/2011 5:13:19 AM PDT by Walkingfeather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
I live in Mississippi... My LE friends would be with me... not with fags and lesbos... and in Mississippi... we still celebrate the First and Second Amendments daily.

LLS

45 posted on 06/24/2011 5:17:34 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH"! I choose LIBERTY and PALIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MissMack99
I want this to be a joke. If there was any doubt, now it's gone: the fascists-communists run US media, intent on destroying us. Time prints fiction.

Am I mistaken, or were you on other threads supporting federal drug laws that are based on the same New Deal Commerce Clause that liberals have used to expand the federal government for over 70 years?

If so, how do you reconcile the two positions?

46 posted on 06/24/2011 5:20:46 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Well, at least they are upfront about their intention.


47 posted on 06/24/2011 5:23:52 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them." -- Lazamataz, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Texas resident
They also missed the opening to Article 1.

"All legislative Powers herein granted . . .

48 posted on 06/24/2011 5:28:25 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Our Constitution put the Natural Law philosophy of the Declaration into practice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Another problem with Hamilton's concept of an indissoluble federal union.
49 posted on 06/24/2011 5:34:26 AM PDT by hfr ("Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD;" Psalms 33:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hfr

No political system is indissoluble.


50 posted on 06/24/2011 5:38:01 AM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: all the best

Whenever a lib brings up the “living document” argument,

I demand they play poker with me with “living” rules,
and I will be the one determining when a rule needs to change to reflect the present situation.

Or, I’ll ask them when the last time they signed a “living” contract, say a mortgage, where the bank can change the terms at any time to suit their needs.

And, indeed, that’s what the Constitution IS. It’s a contract between the sovereign states and the created entity of the general government.


51 posted on 06/24/2011 5:43:19 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so..."

The Constitution doesn't start with the premise that the federal government starts with no limits, then has explicit limits imposed.
The Constitution starts with the premise that the federal government has no powers, then has explicit powers granted - and the entire list fits on one piece of paper; if that's not a limit, there is no such thing.

52 posted on 06/24/2011 5:54:51 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
The Constitution is full of what 0bama would call “negative liberties” - things the Government CANNOT do.

By their own words they created a Government of Limited and Enumerated powers. What limited and enumerated their powers? The Constitution.

Liberals, they don't know much, but they sure are stupid!

53 posted on 06/24/2011 6:01:54 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Or, I’ll ask them when the last time they signed a “living” contract, say a mortgage, where the bank can change the terms at any time to suit their needs.

Trouble is, they think they're the "bank"...

54 posted on 06/24/2011 6:13:19 AM PDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: danielmryan

I’ve heard that, too, from liberals -

“how can you oppose the government? the government is us!”


55 posted on 06/24/2011 6:18:08 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
They didn't mean anything by that "enumerated powers" clause.

They were just joking.

56 posted on 06/24/2011 6:22:37 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (If Sarah Palin really was unelectable, state-run media would be begging the GOP to nominate her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack; Travis McGee; Squantos

I can only come up with ONE possible business model, that works, that Time might be following:

They hope that Obama forms a dictatorship or monarchy, and that they could become one of the official news organs, because they (Time) have demonstrated such loyalty to communism and fascism over the decades.

No other business model works.

57 posted on 06/24/2011 6:24:32 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("First we beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them." -- Lazamataz, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Hey Laz, you’re applying your thought process to communists, and that simply doesn’t work.

I read “You can still trust the communists to be communists” and it really opened my eyes to their thought processes.

They are like ants. They have a firm belief foundation that nothing matters (not even their own lives or livelihoods) but the advancement of global communism.


58 posted on 06/24/2011 6:27:53 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; lowbridge

The traitors project their constitutionally lax ideas on the rest of us. THis is a big mistake. Millions of us still hold to our oaths to protect the constitution against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.

The founding fathers were so smart that they knew the real enemies would emerge from within. They were right. Now we have to be ready to fight that fight at last.


59 posted on 06/24/2011 6:32:37 AM PDT by Travis McGee (Castigo Cay is in print and on Kindle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
The object of the article is to point out that the founders did not know about 'Health Insurance'. That statement has two flaws.

The first is the founders knew about insurance. Insuring risk and lose goes back many hundreds of years.

Probably more important, 'Health Insurance' as Obama and company are trying to implement, is not insurance at all. It's not a sharing of risk or lose. It's a sharing of medical costs. From each according to ability, to each according to need. That not insurance. It's Communism.

The left is playing word games and the right is letting them get away with it.

60 posted on 06/24/2011 6:33:54 AM PDT by CharlyFord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-109 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson