Free USA

Population of israel 8.7 mil

Population of usa 286.4 mil

Skrevet av Red.Army, 21.02.2020 at 17:27

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:23

Population of israel 8.7 mil

Population of usa 286.4 mil

Keep sending them billions whilst you have a poor healthcare system. Also it's kinda sad how you have to fight their wars and send young American soldiers to die for this evil state

I agree we should not be aiding foreigners for their cooperation. I disagree with your statement about health care. A free people cant have nationalized health care. Because ithe only way to make it affordable is to force people to diet, force people not to smoke or drink, force people to exercise, since we obviously wont hold foolish people accountable for their actions you cant expect reasonable people to foot their health care bill.

Skrevet av Red.Army, 21.02.2020 at 17:34

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:31

Skrevet av Red.Army, 21.02.2020 at 17:27

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:23

Population of israel 8.7 mil

Population of usa 286.4 mil

Keep sending them billions whilst you have a poor healthcare system. Also it's kinda sad how you have to fight their wars and send young American soldiers to die for this evil state

I agree we should not be aiding foreigners for their cooperation. I disagree with your statement about health care. A free people cant have nationalized health care. Because ithe only way to make it affordable is to force people to diet, force people not to smoke or drink, force people to exercise, since we obviously wont hold foolish people accountable for their actions you cant expect reasonable people to foot their health care bill.

What's bad about lighting a cigarette

Lung cancer is expensive, i dont smoke why should i pay for your eventual medical bills because your retarded ass got addicted to nicotine?

Skrevet av Red.Army, 21.02.2020 at 17:38

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:35

Skrevet av Red.Army, 21.02.2020 at 17:34

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:31

Skrevet av Red.Army, 21.02.2020 at 17:27

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:23

Population of israel 8.7 mil

Population of usa 286.4 mil

Keep sending them billions whilst you have a poor healthcare system. Also it's kinda sad how you have to fight their wars and send young American soldiers to die for this evil state

I agree we should not be aiding foreigners for their cooperation. I disagree with your statement about health care. A free people cant have nationalized health care. Because ithe only way to make it affordable is to force people to diet, force people not to smoke or drink, force people to exercise, since we obviously wont hold foolish people accountable for their actions you cant expect reasonable people to foot their health care bill.

What's bad about lighting a cigarette

Lung cancer is expensive, i dont smoke why should i pay for your eventual medical bills because your retarded ass got addicted to nicotine?

Light a smoke and chill.

I take my political ideology very seriously.

Skrevet av Red.Army, 21.02.2020 at 17:42

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:39

Skrevet av Red.Army, 21.02.2020 at 17:38

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:35

Skrevet av Red.Army, 21.02.2020 at 17:34

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:31

Skrevet av Red.Army, 21.02.2020 at 17:27

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:23

Population of israel 8.7 mil

Population of usa 286.4 mil

Keep sending them billions whilst you have a poor healthcare system. Also it's kinda sad how you have to fight their wars and send young American soldiers to die for this evil state

I agree we should not be aiding foreigners for their cooperation. I disagree with your statement about health care. A free people cant have nationalized health care. Because ithe only way to make it affordable is to force people to diet, force people not to smoke or drink, force people to exercise, since we obviously wont hold foolish people accountable for their actions you cant expect reasonable people to foot their health care bill.

What's bad about lighting a cigarette

Lung cancer is expensive, i dont smoke why should i pay for your eventual medical bills because your retarded ass got addicted to nicotine?

Light a smoke and chill.

I take my political ideology very seriously.

Embrace communism.

Death is a preferable alternative to communism -Liberty Prime

True story

Skrevet av Red.Army, 21.02.2020 at 17:16

If you want a state health system, come to Argentina and you will see how beautiful it is

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:39

Legit question, does every american with that opinion bets they'll never get sick in their life?

i mean, regardless of.. anything, healthcare should still end up being cheaper than this fraud of insurance you have right now

Skrevet av Steve Aoki, 22.02.2020 at 01:26

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:39

Legit question, does every american with that opinion bets they'll never get sick in their life?

i mean, regardless of.. anything, healthcare should still end up being cheaper than this fraud of insurance you have right now

Agreed, we are over charged, but the solution is never government intervention. In a free market prices are regulated via competition, but the system was rigged with regulations and monopolies making it very dificult for new businesses in health care to get started, ones that perhaps would have lower prices, forcing these grandfathered companies to either compete at the price tag or shut down. The reason it is the way it is, is because your right, you can do everything right in your life and still get sick, chances are lower but it happens, so creating a health care monopoly made many people very wealthy. Rather then hand over my rights to the government, id perfer to disassemble this monopoly piece by piece, creating a healthier system, with more option, competing for my patronage rather then holding the keys to my health hostage, unless i remorgage my house. Excellent question btw

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 08:42

Skrevet av Steve Aoki, 22.02.2020 at 01:26

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:39

Legit question, does every american with that opinion bets they'll never get sick in their life?

i mean, regardless of.. anything, healthcare should still end up being cheaper than this fraud of insurance you have right now

Agreed, we are over charged, but the solution is never government intervention. In a free market prices are regulated via competition, but the system was rigged with regulations and monopolies making it very dificult for new businesses in health care to get started, ones that perhaps would have lower prices, forcing these grandfathered companies to either compete at the price tag or shut down. The reason it is the way it is, is because your right, you can do everything right in your life and still get sick, chances are lower but it happens, so creating a health care monopoly made many people very wealthy. Rather then hand over my rights to the government, id perfer to disassemble this monopoly piece by piece, creating a healthier system, with more option, competing for my patronage rather then holding the keys to my health hostage, unless i remorgage my house. Excellent question btw

Helly, I thought I didn't like you, weren't you a liberal?

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 22.02.2020 at 10:40

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 08:42

Skrevet av Steve Aoki, 22.02.2020 at 01:26

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:39

Legit question, does every american with that opinion bets they'll never get sick in their life?

i mean, regardless of.. anything, healthcare should still end up being cheaper than this fraud of insurance you have right now

Agreed, we are over charged, but the solution is never government intervention. In a free market prices are regulated via competition, but the system was rigged with regulations and monopolies making it very dificult for new businesses in health care to get started, ones that perhaps would have lower prices, forcing these grandfathered companies to either compete at the price tag or shut down. The reason it is the way it is, is because your right, you can do everything right in your life and still get sick, chances are lower but it happens, so creating a health care monopoly made many people very wealthy. Rather then hand over my rights to the government, id perfer to disassemble this monopoly piece by piece, creating a healthier system, with more option, competing for my patronage rather then holding the keys to my health hostage, unless i remorgage my house. Excellent question btw

Helly, I thought I didn't like you, weren't you a liberal?

Socially liberal fiscally conservative, dare i say a centrist, or as i fancy myself a constitutional libertarian.

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 12:04

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 22.02.2020 at 10:40

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 08:42

Skrevet av Steve Aoki, 22.02.2020 at 01:26

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:39

Legit question, does every american with that opinion bets they'll never get sick in their life?

i mean, regardless of.. anything, healthcare should still end up being cheaper than this fraud of insurance you have right now

Agreed, we are over charged, but the solution is never government intervention. In a free market prices are regulated via competition, but the system was rigged with regulations and monopolies making it very dificult for new businesses in health care to get started, ones that perhaps would have lower prices, forcing these grandfathered companies to either compete at the price tag or shut down. The reason it is the way it is, is because your right, you can do everything right in your life and still get sick, chances are lower but it happens, so creating a health care monopoly made many people very wealthy. Rather then hand over my rights to the government, id perfer to disassemble this monopoly piece by piece, creating a healthier system, with more option, competing for my patronage rather then holding the keys to my health hostage, unless i remorgage my house. Excellent question btw

Helly, I thought I didn't like you, weren't you a liberal?

Socially liberal fiscally conservative, dare i say a centrist, or as i fancy myself a constitutional libertarian.

Are you sure you arent a badass templar knight from the crusade?

Skrevet av Witch-Doctor, 22.02.2020 at 13:54

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 12:04

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 22.02.2020 at 10:40

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 08:42

Skrevet av Steve Aoki, 22.02.2020 at 01:26

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:39

Legit question, does every american with that opinion bets they'll never get sick in their life?

i mean, regardless of.. anything, healthcare should still end up being cheaper than this fraud of insurance you have right now

Agreed, we are over charged, but the solution is never government intervention. In a free market prices are regulated via competition, but the system was rigged with regulations and monopolies making it very dificult for new businesses in health care to get started, ones that perhaps would have lower prices, forcing these grandfathered companies to either compete at the price tag or shut down. The reason it is the way it is, is because your right, you can do everything right in your life and still get sick, chances are lower but it happens, so creating a health care monopoly made many people very wealthy. Rather then hand over my rights to the government, id perfer to disassemble this monopoly piece by piece, creating a healthier system, with more option, competing for my patronage rather then holding the keys to my health hostage, unless i remorgage my house. Excellent question btw

Helly, I thought I didn't like you, weren't you a liberal?

Socially liberal fiscally conservative, dare i say a centrist, or as i fancy myself a constitutional libertarian.

Are you sure you arent a badass templar knight from the crusade?

If i was born back then id of loved to be involved so i could see history be made with my own two eyes.

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 12:04

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 22.02.2020 at 10:40

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 08:42

Skrevet av Steve Aoki, 22.02.2020 at 01:26

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:39

Legit question, does every american with that opinion bets they'll never get sick in their life?

i mean, regardless of.. anything, healthcare should still end up being cheaper than this fraud of insurance you have right now

Agreed, we are over charged, but the solution is never government intervention. In a free market prices are regulated via competition, but the system was rigged with regulations and monopolies making it very dificult for new businesses in health care to get started, ones that perhaps would have lower prices, forcing these grandfathered companies to either compete at the price tag or shut down. The reason it is the way it is, is because your right, you can do everything right in your life and still get sick, chances are lower but it happens, so creating a health care monopoly made many people very wealthy. Rather then hand over my rights to the government, id perfer to disassemble this monopoly piece by piece, creating a healthier system, with more option, competing for my patronage rather then holding the keys to my health hostage, unless i remorgage my house. Excellent question btw

Helly, I thought I didn't like you, weren't you a liberal?

Socially liberal fiscally conservative, dare i say a centrist, or as i fancy myself a constitutional libertarian.

Nevermind. I hate you again. Anyone who says "I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative" is an utter retard. I cannot stand those who use that as their "go-to" phrase to appear "reasonable," "more objective," or "politically neutral." It's an evasion tactic used by those who cannot handle pressure or criticism. By nature, most people like to "get along with others" rather than stand up for themselves, which is why so many people claim to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative rather than a real worldview.

I'm not even joking, now I remember why I hated you to begin with. I'm able to pick up on the memo when I engage with people, it's a skill. Either you adopt a real worldview or I'm just gonna dub you as a useless beta male, ok?

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 12:04

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 22.02.2020 at 10:40

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 08:42

Skrevet av Steve Aoki, 22.02.2020 at 01:26

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:39

Legit question, does every american with that opinion bets they'll never get sick in their life?

i mean, regardless of.. anything, healthcare should still end up being cheaper than this fraud of insurance you have right now

Agreed, we are over charged, but the solution is never government intervention. In a free market prices are regulated via competition, but the system was rigged with regulations and monopolies making it very dificult for new businesses in health care to get started, ones that perhaps would have lower prices, forcing these grandfathered companies to either compete at the price tag or shut down. The reason it is the way it is, is because your right, you can do everything right in your life and still get sick, chances are lower but it happens, so creating a health care monopoly made many people very wealthy. Rather then hand over my rights to the government, id perfer to disassemble this monopoly piece by piece, creating a healthier system, with more option, competing for my patronage rather then holding the keys to my health hostage, unless i remorgage my house. Excellent question btw

Helly, I thought I didn't like you, weren't you a liberal?

Socially liberal fiscally conservative, dare i say a centrist, or as i fancy myself a constitutional libertarian.

Also, you can't support the Constitution without being socially conservative. If you aren't social conservative, you quite literally cannot be a "constitutional libertarian." If you want, I can tell you why.

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 22.02.2020 at 14:51

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 12:04

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 22.02.2020 at 10:40

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 08:42

Skrevet av Steve Aoki, 22.02.2020 at 01:26

Skrevet av Helly, 21.02.2020 at 17:39

Legit question, does every american with that opinion bets they'll never get sick in their life?

i mean, regardless of.. anything, healthcare should still end up being cheaper than this fraud of insurance you have right now

Agreed, we are over charged, but the solution is never government intervention. In a free market prices are regulated via competition, but the system was rigged with regulations and monopolies making it very dificult for new businesses in health care to get started, ones that perhaps would have lower prices, forcing these grandfathered companies to either compete at the price tag or shut down. The reason it is the way it is, is because your right, you can do everything right in your life and still get sick, chances are lower but it happens, so creating a health care monopoly made many people very wealthy. Rather then hand over my rights to the government, id perfer to disassemble this monopoly piece by piece, creating a healthier system, with more option, competing for my patronage rather then holding the keys to my health hostage, unless i remorgage my house. Excellent question btw

Helly, I thought I didn't like you, weren't you a liberal?

Socially liberal fiscally conservative, dare i say a centrist, or as i fancy myself a constitutional libertarian.

Also, you can't support the Constitution without being socially conservative. If you aren't social conservative, you quite literally cannot be a "constitutional libertarian." If you want, I can tell you why.

I believe all men are created equal, the way conservatives interpret that is hypocritical to say the least. Our country was founded on the principles of life liberty and the persuite of happiness, I should be free of any persecution in my private actions regardless of its moral, or religious implications as long as i do not hurt others or our society. Ae i wont publically do amoral things because of the psychological effects my actions could have on others. That is why i cant stand with conservatives and the religious doctrin they adopted when in interpretation of the constitution. Religion is a union between the individual and their creator it has no place in society, just as lesbians running around local parks dressed as vaginas have no place either. I can not repute one extreme and not the other.

Basically my world view is that of a republic, where the individual has unalienable rights, that can not be subjected by the masses, if i wish to be a nazi, a black panther, a kkk member, if i wish to do hard drugs, if i wish to take my life, it should be the individuals choice as long as it does not hinder the progression of a free society. For example killing myself in my bathroom is my choice, killing myself in a high school is wrong because of the impact it has on others. We own the land we stand on, we can acquire property for monetary transaction or other wise, what you do with your life your property, and your time should be up to you.

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 22.02.2020 at 14:51

...

Also, you can't support the Constitution without being socially conservative. If you aren't social conservative, you quite literally cannot be a "constitutional libertarian." If you want, I can tell you why.

Sure you can.. all you do is re-define terms to have them mean whatever you want them to mean. Now that there are no objective standards in the US, (as evidenced by the fact US judges don't always interpret the constitution unanimously, so what about the other 300 million people who have a wider perspective and interpretation, who are also purported to be bound by the constitution) everything becomes subjective opinion, so terms become meaningful only from the perspective of the individual using them, not the listener. In the days when language meant something, constitutional libertarian would be interpreted as 'libertarian' with 'constitutional' being an adjective, restricting or clarifying the type of 'libertarian'. Similarly, a social conservative is a 'conservative' with 'social' describing what type of conservative. So if you weren't a conservative, then by default you could be anything you wanted to be... communist, socialist, libertarian, anarchist, administrator, player or moderator.. so long as you weren't a 'conservative'. So of course from an objective standpoint, it is entirely logical that if you aren't 'conservative' (social or otherwise) then you could quite literally be anything but a 'conservative', including a 'libertarian' (constitutional or otherwise).

It is only by diminishing meaning of words, by making such logically inconsistent statements such as "IF NOT X THEN NOT Y=TRUE" (i.e. if not social conservative, then cannot be constitutional libertarian=TRUE, OR to make it really clear, IF not apple, THEN cannot be banana=TRUE (even if you happen to be a banana) that the breakdown of communication, and by extension, community itself, begins to decline, leading to social devolution.

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 15:15

I believe all men are created equal, the way conservatives interpret that is hypocritical to say the least. Our country was founded on the principles of life liberty and the persuite of happiness, I should be free of any persecution in my private actions regardless of its moral, or religious implications as long as i do not hurt others or our society. Ae i wont publically do amoral things because of the psychological effects my actions could have on others. That is why i cant stand with conservatives and the religious doctrin they adopted when in interpretation of the constitution. Religion is a union between the individual and their creator it has no place in society, just as lesbians running around local parks dressed as vaginas have no place either. I can not repute one extreme and not the other.

Helly, I would appreciate if you'd hear me out because I used to think in exactly the same way.

First of all, there is no such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" understanding of the Constitution. Different modes of interpretation exist, such as originalism or consequentialism, but the Constitution is, more than anything else, a legal document. The Constitution, like every other law, cannot be political because the enforcement of law must not be political; of course, the formation or rescission of law may often be, but the judicial branch of government does not form or rescind law. The judicial branch may on occasion establish for itself precedent, or declare unconstitutional some law, but the branch is not by nature political.

Allow me to explain. Originally, the House of Representatives represented the people, while the Senate represented the legislatures of the states. The 17th Amendment changed the original structure of our government by making the Senate representative of the people. You see, the reason the framers of our Constitution wanted the Senate to represent the states was because the Senate would be less political and less representative of the people. They understood that more democracy does not equal better governance. For instance, when a popularly elected Senate decides to appoint a justice of the Supreme Court, the judiciary becomes somewhat more politicized that it would be if the 17th Amendment was never ratified. There used to be two checks on judicial appointments: state legislatures and the Senate; now only the Senate checks the judiciary. The more popular the judiciary becomes, the less able it is to interpret the Constitution as a legal document, and the more likely they are to inject their own policy preferences into the document.

By nature, the judicial branch is not political, but the 17th Amendment changed the dynamics of our government, which led the judiciary to act contrary to its nature. As a "conservative," and as an "originalist," I only believe that the judicial branch should not be political, and that as soon as laws are enforced, their interpretation should reflect how its original enforcers understood its meaning. In other words, law means what it meant at the time it was written; law is written in a social context, and although law is changed in a contemporary social context, it should not be interpreted contemporarily; it should be interpreted in the social context that existed when it was written and when it was originally enforced. Therefore, in my view, the Constitution, like every other law, must be interpreted in the social context that existed during its ratification. Mind you, the Constitution consists of 27 amendments, all of which were ratified in different social contexts—I'm only talking about the first seven articles and the Bill of Rights.

Your philosophy is somewhat misguided because it presupposes that the Constitution was founded in an atomic context whereby the government must secure for every individual their liberty without any virtue. William Douglas, a former associate justice of the Supreme Court, once said that "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." What he meant by this was that, for example, the Establishment Clause does not preclude the government from forwarding the virtue of its people. For this reason, the Bible is frequently invoked in oaths and in Congress. The Establishment Clause does not say that the government must provide for its people a totally neutral forum absent of virtue or culture. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the people of the United States do not have culture, or any associated virtue, which is false at face value. The culture of our country may change, and the government may rightly decide to no longer invoke the Bible, but it must not be obliged to remove invocations of the Bible or any other act of virtue altogether from its institutions. That would be contrary not only to our law, but to our culture and who we are as a people.

Therefore, you cannot be socially liberal while also believing in the Constitution.

Skrevet av brianwl, 22.02.2020 at 15:24

Sure you can.. all you do is re-define terms to have them mean whatever you want them to mean. Now that there are no objective standards in the US, (as evidenced by the fact US judges don't always interpret the constitution unanimously, so what about the other 300 million people who have a wider perspective and interpretation, who are also purported to be bound by the constitution) everything becomes subjective opinion, so terms become meaningful only from the perspective of the individual using them, not the listener. In the days when language meant something, constitutional libertarian would be interpreted as 'libertarian' with 'constitutional' being an adjective, restricting or clarifying the type of 'libertarian'. Similarly, a social conservative is a 'conservative' with 'social' describing what type of conservative. So if you weren't a conservative, then by default you could be anything you wanted to be... communist, socialist, libertarian, anarchist, administrator, player or moderator.. so long as you weren't a 'conservative'. So of course from an objective standpoint, it is entirely logical that if you aren't 'conservative' (social or otherwise) then you could quite literally be anything but a 'conservative', including a 'libertarian' (constitutional or otherwise).

It is only by diminishing meaning of words, by making such logically inconsistent statements such as "IF NOT X THEN NOT Y=TRUE" (i.e. if not social conservative, then cannot be constitutional libertarian=TRUE, OR to make it really clear, IF not apple, THEN cannot be banana=TRUE (even if you happen to be a banana) that the breakdown of communication, and by extension, community itself, begins to decline, leading to social devolution.

Refer to the post I made above. You cannot believe in the Constitution (i.e., believe in its original meaning) without ostensibly being socially conservative. Technically, you do not have to be socially conservative, but if you believe in the original meaning of the Constitution, then you must by default not believe that the Constitution guarantees a right to abortion or a right to contraceptives. It depends on how being socially liberal is defined, and whether it implies that that Constitution must be interpreted in a particular way.

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 22.02.2020 at 17:50

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 15:15

I believe all men are created equal, the way conservatives interpret that is hypocritical to say the least. Our country was founded on the principles of life liberty and the persuite of happiness, I should be free of any persecution in my private actions regardless of its moral, or religious implications as long as i do not hurt others or our society. Ae i wont publically do amoral things because of the psychological effects my actions could have on others. That is why i cant stand with conservatives and the religious doctrin they adopted when in interpretation of the constitution. Religion is a union between the individual and their creator it has no place in society, just as lesbians running around local parks dressed as vaginas have no place either. I can not repute one extreme and not the other.

Helly, I would appreciate if you'd hear me out because I used to think in exactly the same way.

First of all, there is no such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" understanding of the Constitution. Different modes of interpretation exist, such as originalism or consequentialism, but the Constitution is, more than anything else, a legal document. The Constitution, like every other law, cannot be political because the enforcement of law must not be political; of course, the formation or rescission of law may often be, but the judicial branch of government does not form or rescind law. The judicial branch may on occasion establish for itself precedent, or declare unconstitutional some law, but the branch is not by nature political.

Allow me to explain. Originally, the House of Representatives represented the people, while the Senate represented the legislatures of the states. The 17th Amendment changed the original structure of our government by making the Senate representative of the people. You see, the reason the framers of our Constitution wanted the Senate to represent the states was because the Senate would be less political and less representative of the people. They understood that more democracy does not equal better governance. For instance, when a popularly elected Senate decides to appoint a justice of the Supreme Court, the judiciary becomes somewhat more politicized that it would be if the 17th Amendment was never ratified. There used to be two checks on judicial appointments: state legislatures and the Senate; now only the Senate checks the judiciary. The more popular the judiciary becomes, the less able it is to interpret the Constitution as a legal document, and the more likely they are to inject their own policy preferences into the document.

By nature, the judicial branch is not political, but the 17th Amendment changed the dynamics of our government, which led the judiciary to act contrary to its nature. As a "conservative," and as an "originalist," I only believe that the judicial branch should not be political, and that as soon as laws are enforced, their interpretation should reflect how its original enforcers understood its meaning. In other words, law means what it meant at the time it was written; law is written in a social context, and although law is changed in a contemporary social context, it should not be interpreted contemporarily; it should be interpreted in the social context that existed when it was written and when it was originally enforced. Therefore, in my view, the Constitution, like every other law, must be interpreted in the social context that existed during its ratification. Mind you, the Constitution consists of 27 amendments, all of which were ratified in different social contexts—I'm only talking about the first seven articles and the Bill of Rights.

Your philosophy is somewhat misguided because it presupposes that the Constitution was founded in an atomic context whereby the government must secure for every individual their liberty without any virtue. William Douglas, a former associate justice of the Supreme Court, once said that "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." What he meant by this was that, for example, the Establishment Clause does not preclude the government from forwarding the virtue of its people. For this reason, the Bible is frequently invoked in oaths and in Congress. The Establishment Clause does not say that the government must provide for its people a totally neutral forum absent of virtue or culture. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the people of the United States do not have culture, or any associated virtue, which is false at face value. The culture of our country may change, and the government may rightly decide to no longer invoke the Bible, but it must not be obliged to remove invocations of the Bible or any other act of virtue altogether from its institutions. That would be contrary not only to our law, but to our culture and who we are as a people.

Therefore, you cannot be socially liberal while also believing in the Constitution.

Whether i agree with your interpretation or not, the united states government and its people believe in the notion that in their interpretation, backed by judicial approval they may change what a law means, which theyve done and do. We can argue the semantics of what the founding fathers believed all we want, it doesnt matter what you or i believe. I do not for a second think that our founding fathers, ever wanted a theocratic republic. But due to how politics worked at the time, you had to include God in your understanding of law in order for it to be supported by the people.

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 18:24

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 22.02.2020 at 17:50

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 15:15

I believe all men are created equal, the way conservatives interpret that is hypocritical to say the least. Our country was founded on the principles of life liberty and the persuite of happiness, I should be free of any persecution in my private actions regardless of its moral, or religious implications as long as i do not hurt others or our society. Ae i wont publically do amoral things because of the psychological effects my actions could have on others. That is why i cant stand with conservatives and the religious doctrin they adopted when in interpretation of the constitution. Religion is a union between the individual and their creator it has no place in society, just as lesbians running around local parks dressed as vaginas have no place either. I can not repute one extreme and not the other.

Helly, I would appreciate if you'd hear me out because I used to think in exactly the same way.

First of all, there is no such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" understanding of the Constitution. Different modes of interpretation exist, such as originalism or consequentialism, but the Constitution is, more than anything else, a legal document. The Constitution, like every other law, cannot be political because the enforcement of law must not be political; of course, the formation or rescission of law may often be, but the judicial branch of government does not form or rescind law. The judicial branch may on occasion establish for itself precedent, or declare unconstitutional some law, but the branch is not by nature political.

Allow me to explain. Originally, the House of Representatives represented the people, while the Senate represented the legislatures of the states. The 17th Amendment changed the original structure of our government by making the Senate representative of the people. You see, the reason the framers of our Constitution wanted the Senate to represent the states was because the Senate would be less political and less representative of the people. They understood that more democracy does not equal better governance. For instance, when a popularly elected Senate decides to appoint a justice of the Supreme Court, the judiciary becomes somewhat more politicized that it would be if the 17th Amendment was never ratified. There used to be two checks on judicial appointments: state legislatures and the Senate; now only the Senate checks the judiciary. The more popular the judiciary becomes, the less able it is to interpret the Constitution as a legal document, and the more likely they are to inject their own policy preferences into the document.

By nature, the judicial branch is not political, but the 17th Amendment changed the dynamics of our government, which led the judiciary to act contrary to its nature. As a "conservative," and as an "originalist," I only believe that the judicial branch should not be political, and that as soon as laws are enforced, their interpretation should reflect how its original enforcers understood its meaning. In other words, law means what it meant at the time it was written; law is written in a social context, and although law is changed in a contemporary social context, it should not be interpreted contemporarily; it should be interpreted in the social context that existed when it was written and when it was originally enforced. Therefore, in my view, the Constitution, like every other law, must be interpreted in the social context that existed during its ratification. Mind you, the Constitution consists of 27 amendments, all of which were ratified in different social contexts—I'm only talking about the first seven articles and the Bill of Rights.

Your philosophy is somewhat misguided because it presupposes that the Constitution was founded in an atomic context whereby the government must secure for every individual their liberty without any virtue. William Douglas, a former associate justice of the Supreme Court, once said that "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." What he meant by this was that, for example, the Establishment Clause does not preclude the government from forwarding the virtue of its people. For this reason, the Bible is frequently invoked in oaths and in Congress. The Establishment Clause does not say that the government must provide for its people a totally neutral forum absent of virtue or culture. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the people of the United States do not have culture, or any associated virtue, which is false at face value. The culture of our country may change, and the government may rightly decide to no longer invoke the Bible, but it must not be obliged to remove invocations of the Bible or any other act of virtue altogether from its institutions. That would be contrary not only to our law, but to our culture and who we are as a people.

Therefore, you cannot be socially liberal while also believing in the Constitution.

Whether i agree with your interpretation or not, the united states government and its people believe in the notion that in their interpretation, backed by judicial approval they may change what a law means, which theyve done and do. We can argue the semantics of what the founding fathers believed all we want, it doesnt matter what you or i believe. I do not for a second think that our founding fathers, ever wanted a theocratic republic. But due to how politics worked at the time, you had to include God in your understanding of law in order for it to be supported by the people.

You must not have read what I just said, because you've described an entirely different argument that I did not make. First of all, we aren't arguing over the "semantics" of text, but rather the meaning of text. You've suggested just now that, because your interpretation has popular support, my interpretation is irreverent. Whether one interpretation has popular support or not is irrelevant in our discussion because we are only arguing over interpretation—that is the crux of our argument. I'm only suggesting that the government should be free to forward whatever virtue it wants in its institutions because the Constitution does not preclude it from doing so based on my understanding of the Establishment Clause. I'm not talking about religion necessarily, I'm talking about virtue or the virtues which may be associated with religion or culture. Liberty and virtue aren't opposed to each other, they support each other and keep a country intact.

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 22.02.2020 at 19:06

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 18:24

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 22.02.2020 at 17:50

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 15:15

I believe all men are created equal, the way conservatives interpret that is hypocritical to say the least. Our country was founded on the principles of life liberty and the persuite of happiness, I should be free of any persecution in my private actions regardless of its moral, or religious implications as long as i do not hurt others or our society. Ae i wont publically do amoral things because of the psychological effects my actions could have on others. That is why i cant stand with conservatives and the religious doctrin they adopted when in interpretation of the constitution. Religion is a union between the individual and their creator it has no place in society, just as lesbians running around local parks dressed as vaginas have no place either. I can not repute one extreme and not the other.

Helly, I would appreciate if you'd hear me out because I used to think in exactly the same way.

First of all, there is no such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" understanding of the Constitution. Different modes of interpretation exist, such as originalism or consequentialism, but the Constitution is, more than anything else, a legal document. The Constitution, like every other law, cannot be political because the enforcement of law must not be political; of course, the formation or rescission of law may often be, but the judicial branch of government does not form or rescind law. The judicial branch may on occasion establish for itself precedent, or declare unconstitutional some law, but the branch is not by nature political.

Allow me to explain. Originally, the House of Representatives represented the people, while the Senate represented the legislatures of the states. The 17th Amendment changed the original structure of our government by making the Senate representative of the people. You see, the reason the framers of our Constitution wanted the Senate to represent the states was because the Senate would be less political and less representative of the people. They understood that more democracy does not equal better governance. For instance, when a popularly elected Senate decides to appoint a justice of the Supreme Court, the judiciary becomes somewhat more politicized that it would be if the 17th Amendment was never ratified. There used to be two checks on judicial appointments: state legislatures and the Senate; now only the Senate checks the judiciary. The more popular the judiciary becomes, the less able it is to interpret the Constitution as a legal document, and the more likely they are to inject their own policy preferences into the document.

By nature, the judicial branch is not political, but the 17th Amendment changed the dynamics of our government, which led the judiciary to act contrary to its nature. As a "conservative," and as an "originalist," I only believe that the judicial branch should not be political, and that as soon as laws are enforced, their interpretation should reflect how its original enforcers understood its meaning. In other words, law means what it meant at the time it was written; law is written in a social context, and although law is changed in a contemporary social context, it should not be interpreted contemporarily; it should be interpreted in the social context that existed when it was written and when it was originally enforced. Therefore, in my view, the Constitution, like every other law, must be interpreted in the social context that existed during its ratification. Mind you, the Constitution consists of 27 amendments, all of which were ratified in different social contexts—I'm only talking about the first seven articles and the Bill of Rights.

Your philosophy is somewhat misguided because it presupposes that the Constitution was founded in an atomic context whereby the government must secure for every individual their liberty without any virtue. William Douglas, a former associate justice of the Supreme Court, once said that "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." What he meant by this was that, for example, the Establishment Clause does not preclude the government from forwarding the virtue of its people. For this reason, the Bible is frequently invoked in oaths and in Congress. The Establishment Clause does not say that the government must provide for its people a totally neutral forum absent of virtue or culture. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the people of the United States do not have culture, or any associated virtue, which is false at face value. The culture of our country may change, and the government may rightly decide to no longer invoke the Bible, but it must not be obliged to remove invocations of the Bible or any other act of virtue altogether from its institutions. That would be contrary not only to our law, but to our culture and who we are as a people.

Therefore, you cannot be socially liberal while also believing in the Constitution.

Whether i agree with your interpretation or not, the united states government and its people believe in the notion that in their interpretation, backed by judicial approval they may change what a law means, which theyve done and do. We can argue the semantics of what the founding fathers believed all we want, it doesnt matter what you or i believe. I do not for a second think that our founding fathers, ever wanted a theocratic republic. But due to how politics worked at the time, you had to include God in your understanding of law in order for it to be supported by the people.

You must not have read what I just said, because you've described an entirely different argument that I did not make. First of all, we aren't arguing over the "semantics" of text, but rather the meaning of text. You've suggested just now that, because your interpretation has popular support, my interpretation is irreverent. Whether one interpretation has popular support or not is irrelevant in our discussion because we are only arguing over interpretation—that is the crux of our argument. I'm only suggesting that the government should be free to forward whatever virtue it wants in its institutions because the Constitution does not preclude it from doing so based on my understanding of the Establishment Clause. I'm not talking about religion necessarily, I'm talking about virtue or the virtues which may be associated with religion or culture. Liberty and virtue aren't opposed to each other, they support each other and keep a country intact.

I said yours is as useful as mine which is basically irrelevant.

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 19:13

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 22.02.2020 at 19:06

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 18:24

Skrevet av Tribune Aquila, 22.02.2020 at 17:50

Skrevet av Helly, 22.02.2020 at 15:15

I believe all men are created equal, the way conservatives interpret that is hypocritical to say the least. Our country was founded on the principles of life liberty and the persuite of happiness, I should be free of any persecution in my private actions regardless of its moral, or religious implications as long as i do not hurt others or our society. Ae i wont publically do amoral things because of the psychological effects my actions could have on others. That is why i cant stand with conservatives and the religious doctrin they adopted when in interpretation of the constitution. Religion is a union between the individual and their creator it has no place in society, just as lesbians running around local parks dressed as vaginas have no place either. I can not repute one extreme and not the other.

Helly, I would appreciate if you'd hear me out because I used to think in exactly the same way.

First of all, there is no such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" understanding of the Constitution. Different modes of interpretation exist, such as originalism or consequentialism, but the Constitution is, more than anything else, a legal document. The Constitution, like every other law, cannot be political because the enforcement of law must not be political; of course, the formation or rescission of law may often be, but the judicial branch of government does not form or rescind law. The judicial branch may on occasion establish for itself precedent, or declare unconstitutional some law, but the branch is not by nature political.

Allow me to explain. Originally, the House of Representatives represented the people, while the Senate represented the legislatures of the states. The 17th Amendment changed the original structure of our government by making the Senate representative of the people. You see, the reason the framers of our Constitution wanted the Senate to represent the states was because the Senate would be less political and less representative of the people. They understood that more democracy does not equal better governance. For instance, when a popularly elected Senate decides to appoint a justice of the Supreme Court, the judiciary becomes somewhat more politicized that it would be if the 17th Amendment was never ratified. There used to be two checks on judicial appointments: state legislatures and the Senate; now only the Senate checks the judiciary. The more popular the judiciary becomes, the less able it is to interpret the Constitution as a legal document, and the more likely they are to inject their own policy preferences into the document.

By nature, the judicial branch is not political, but the 17th Amendment changed the dynamics of our government, which led the judiciary to act contrary to its nature. As a "conservative," and as an "originalist," I only believe that the judicial branch should not be political, and that as soon as laws are enforced, their interpretation should reflect how its original enforcers understood its meaning. In other words, law means what it meant at the time it was written; law is written in a social context, and although law is changed in a contemporary social context, it should not be interpreted contemporarily; it should be interpreted in the social context that existed when it was written and when it was originally enforced. Therefore, in my view, the Constitution, like every other law, must be interpreted in the social context that existed during its ratification. Mind you, the Constitution consists of 27 amendments, all of which were ratified in different social contexts—I'm only talking about the first seven articles and the Bill of Rights.

Your philosophy is somewhat misguided because it presupposes that the Constitution was founded in an atomic context whereby the government must secure for every individual their liberty without any virtue. William Douglas, a former associate justice of the Supreme Court, once said that "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." What he meant by this was that, for example, the Establishment Clause does not preclude the government from forwarding the virtue of its people. For this reason, the Bible is frequently invoked in oaths and in Congress. The Establishment Clause does not say that the government must provide for its people a totally neutral forum absent of virtue or culture. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the people of the United States do not have culture, or any associated virtue, which is false at face value. The culture of our country may change, and the government may rightly decide to no longer invoke the Bible, but it must not be obliged to remove invocations of the Bible or any other act of virtue altogether from its institutions. That would be contrary not only to our law, but to our culture and who we are as a people.

Therefore, you cannot be socially liberal while also believing in the Constitution.

Whether i agree with your interpretation or not, the united states government and its people believe in the notion that in their interpretation, backed by judicial approval they may change what a law means, which theyve done and do. We can argue the semantics of what the founding fathers believed all we want, it doesnt matter what you or i believe. I do not for a second think that our founding fathers, ever wanted a theocratic republic. But due to how politics worked at the time, you had to include God in your understanding of law in order for it to be supported by the people.

You must not have read what I just said, because you've described an entirely different argument that I did not make. First of all, we aren't arguing over the "semantics" of text, but rather the meaning of text. You've suggested just now that, because your interpretation has popular support, my interpretation is irreverent. Whether one interpretation has popular support or not is irrelevant in our discussion because we are only arguing over interpretation—that is the crux of our argument. I'm only suggesting that the government should be free to forward whatever virtue it wants in its institutions because the Constitution does not preclude it from doing so based on my understanding of the Establishment Clause. I'm not talking about religion necessarily, I'm talking about virtue or the virtues which may be associated with religion or culture. Liberty and virtue aren't opposed to each other, they support each other and keep a country intact.

I said yours is as useful as mine which basically irrelevant.

you are irrelevant

Skrevet av Red.Army, 21.02.2020 at 17:16

there is no aid
we pay money for various things like military inventions and tech
information and a safe haven for our troops in the middle east.
american spf go and train with the Israeli ones
ect...

as an american i think we are getting more than enough value for our money
in the Israeli deal
on the other hand there are country's we support and get nothing out of it.