Why are you liberal democrats against US constitution?

oops

you can't use todays language and apply it to a 200+ year old document. you said so yourself.

history has consistently demonstrated otherwise.
.

this is called a "no true Scotsman" fallacy

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtG2YZ0ZJYQ

 

Not a single democrat voted to enact the 14th amendment. Not one.

 

I'm not sure what party politics 150 years ago has to do with my statement? conservative republicans TODAY want to ban the 14th amendment and only selectively enforce the 1st, for Christians only.

 

I have seen no movement of any conservative to repeal the 14A. Can you provide a link?

 

I don't see judicial review mentioned there

Im not Im using the original. Private property is private property

When was the last time we had a conservative government? Coolidge?

 

You can't give an honest answer. It's a dishonest question. General is to broad. And for every left you think is against the constitution, every left has just as much beef where the right is against the constitution. And it was set up that way, IMO. To get folks to work together to make things better for all, not 1 side or the other.
And IMO, General Welfare is what the society at the time thinks is important.

 

That is the most illogical statement, and pretty much borders on lying.
Liberals have given more freedom to more people in the country than any one else.
Righties want to use gov't to control everyone's lives.
Now some are complaining about gov't spying. Righties were adamant about putting in measures to spy on people in the name of self defense. What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

I have seen no movement of any democrat to repeal the 2A, can you provide a link?

 

of course you did...........

it's right there.

that isn't the original. the original covered flint lock muskets, letters and spoken words.

LOL, Reagan was a liberal?

 

I have not made that claim, however, you did make the claim that conservatives want to repeal the 14A. Can you provide a link?

 

In 40-50 yrs, no one will know of the Flintstones and that meaning they used won't even be remember or know about. Sometimes it takes many generations and the transition time causes stress.
And the further we get from the origin, the less that can be know of exact meaning and content, it becomes speculation. And yes, some words need to be documented in the times written, but that is tough to do over hundreds and thousands of years. See all the different bible interpretations and meaning. Heck, the English language may not be the same in another hundred years.

 

I was using the same baseless nonsense the poster I quoted did when he claimed that "liberal democrats" want to ban the 2A.

There has been no legislative push to ban any of the above. Both sides try to work around them though. Liberals on the 2nd, and conservatives on the 14th and 1st.

 

you haven't been around here much; the Right projects that way all the time. they love to complain about their appeals to ignorance of the law not being taken very seriously

 

And, yet, the meaning of "we'll have a gay old time!" will remain the same, when referencing the Flintstones, forever. Just as the meaning of 'well-regulated' remains the same in the context of the Constitution. Both mean what they meant to their respective authors.

 

Why are you liberal democrats against US constitution?

we're not the ones who want the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights of Muslim Americans to be violated.

we're not the ones who want Muslim Americans banned from re-entering the USA.

 

They,they, them, them. Obviously you have some difficulties providing any actual evidence.

 

I see. So you intentionally post 'baseless nonsense' that does not accurately reflect your view, instead of crafting a logical refutation. Perhaps my sarcasm detector needs calibrating.

 

yes, I was parroting the moronic argument of the poster I quoted.

 

Well I am a liberal democrat- and I absolutely belief in the U.S. Constitution.

What part of the Constitution do you imagine I do not believe in?

I don't want to change any of the Bill of Rights.

So again- why do you think that I do?

(by the way, the 2nd Amendment is only one part of the U.S. Constitution- i support the entire Constitution)

 

nope; it is working just fine. some posters don't distinguish between simple rejection and actual refutation.

 

They have no knowledge of God. And only want the teaching thereof to disappear. This rightfully explains their ideology, and willingness to give up their liberties for safety and security.

Ben Franklin said "Those willing to give up their liberties for security, will receive neither".

 

Thank you for admitting that you think the general welfare clause is so broad that it can mean whatever society thinks it means. The problem is that you've thrown out the constitution with that interpretation.

and the question still remains unanswered. Why? What is the problem with a constitutional form of government? Don't you understand the dangers of letting the government define its own limits? The reason you have a constitution is because it defines the limits and the responsibilities of the government.

You're obviously fine with ignoring the constitution, and all we are asking is why?

 

why so many security wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

What are you talking about? Even the Republicans don't really believe in their own doctrine.