Are you a Constitutionalist?

[flintauqua]

Again, where in the Constitution and Bill of Rights does it state what you saying?

You keep avoiding an actual answer, and I will keep right on asking it.

[srkruzich]

Again, where in the Constitution and Bill of Rights does it state what you saying?

You keep avoiding an actual answer, and I will keep right on asking it.

Well flint i have answered your question 3 or 4 times already.  It appears that you have no response to my reply and can't dispute what i am saying.  IF you want an answer ask a question not a general blanket statement.

Until then, i'll keep referring you to my last half a dozen posts.

[flintauqua]

No, Steve, you never have answered my question.  You and Billy do an awful lot of throwing out some positional statement that is a complete contradition to the unwavering language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Then when you are called out on it, you never do answer when asked where in the Constitution and Bill of Rights does it state your position.  I know the language of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the other 17 admendments.  Apparently you and Billy do not, because you never state where in the Founding Documents the language is to back up your assertations.

I'm done.  You're never going to answer, because either you know you're wrong, or because you refuse to acknowledge that the Constitution and all 27 admendments to it constitute a 'living document', open to interpretation.  And it is not for you or I to accomplish said interpretation; that duty is exclusively delegated to one, and only one, entity - the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Goodnight, and Goodbye for a few days.

From the Center

Flint

[srkruzich]

No, Steve, you never have answered my question.  You and Billy do an awful lot of throwing out some positional statement that is a complete contradition to the unwavering language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Then when you are called out on it, you never do answer when asked where in the Constitution and Bill of Rights does it state your position.  I know the language of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the other 17 admendments.  Apparently you and Billy do not, because you never state where in the Founding Documents the language is to back up your assertations.

I'm done.  You're never going to answer, because either you know you're wrong, or because you refuse to acknowledge that the Constitution and all 27 admendments to it constitute a 'living document', open to interpretation.  And it is not for you or I to accomplish said interpretation; that duty is exclusively delegated to one, and only one, entity - the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Goodnight, and Goodbye for a few days.

From the Center

Flint

Well by your statement that the constitution is a living document, shows your lack of education in Government and Constitutional issues.  Even if i spell it out for you and give you a course on the Constitution, you would not be willing to learn.  You claim centrist, you display leftist.

[Diane Amberg]

Constitutional law is one tough course!

[srkruzich]

Constitutional law is one tough course!

Yes it is and the one thing that people cannot grasp for some reason is that the Constitution pertains to the Federal level and that the Federal Government does not have citizens under it. 

[Teresa]

I understood Varmits and Steve's answers.. But I don't think Flint did..because it wasn't what he wanted to hear maybe??
Its a wide course of range in answering a question pertaining to something pertaining to the Constitution.. the  Bible.. etc.. Everyone wants its answered in the way that they see or think the answer should be.  But I thought that they answered it very well..
But what do I know..   I'm just a mere insane blond who's crazy as a pet coon who is tainted with McDonald blood... LOL 

( That WILL cost you Jarhead.. sooner or later... and you know that..........  **hee hee hee**

Although my daddy DID have a pet coon growing up.......and it was a bit on the crazy side..
.HHHmmmmmmm

[srkruzich]

I understood Varmits and Steve's answers.. But I don't think Flint did..because it wasn't what he wanted to hear maybe??
Its a wide course of range in answering a question pertaining to something pertaining to the Constitution.. the  Bible.. etc.. Everyone wants its answered in the way that they see or think the answer should be.  But I thought that they answered it very well..
But what do I know..   I'm just a mere insane blond who's crazy as a pet coon who is tainted with McDonald blood... LOL 

( That WILL cost you Jarhead.. sooner or later... and you know that..........  **hee hee hee**

Although my daddy DID have a pet coon growing up.......and it was a bit on the crazy side..
.HHHmmmmmmm

Thank You!  I don't care if your a crazy blond petting mcdonalds blood coon or whatever you said lol.

[Varmit]

I think it's a farce that someone can come here, and answer yes to these questions....

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people's liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.

18. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops should never serve under foreign commanders or wear the uniform or insignia of the United Nations, and that they must never submit to illegal orders, such as turning their weapons against American citizens, or confiscating the guns of U.S. citizens.

32. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops are not the world's policemen, that they are not "nation-builders," and that their purpose is only to defend American lives and property, not to be the enforcement arm of international commercial interests or global elitists.

35. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose sending billions of taxpayer dollars as foreign aid; the U.S. State Department meddling into the private affairs of foreign countries; and ubiquitous foreign entanglements that require vast sums of money, create animosity and hostility towards us, and expose us to foreign wars and conflicts in which we have no national interest.

And then in the same thread, express viewpoints contrary to every one of those questions.  Instead of recognizing the double talk or realizing that there are people amongst you who believe its ok for foreigners influencing our government, you all pat him on the back and you jump on the people who are trying to wake you all up.

When have I advocated taking away an American citizens rights in the name of liberty?

First of all, our troops have NEVER worn the uniform of the united nations.  They may have worn the patch and had foreign commanders in charge of operations, but their orders come from american military commanders.  Having served in such situations, I speak from experience, where did you get your knowledge on the subject?

I never stated that I believe our military should act as "nation builders".  I said that the "nation building" you speak of is part of our "hearts and minds" philosophy, not that I agree with it.

As for #35.  That is so blatantly anti-Isreal its not funny.  No to mention the fact that the way it is worded.  According to the language, we should not help our allies in any way.  Which given the state of world affairs would not only be profoundly stupid, but damn near suicidal.  

[flintauqua]

Constitutional law is one tough course!

Yeah, that's why I took it twice, once at Wichita State and again at Kansas State.  Not because I had too, but because I wanted to. Got an A both times.  

One professor was a strict constructionist, the other was a contextualist.  It's nice to know more than one point of view on something as important as the Constitution.

Others just don't get it.