quote:

Originally posted by The17sss This is how the change would happen: To Obama and his ilk, negative rights are that the government can't do enough... that it's limited. So, if you have someone like Bill Ayers working up a curricula for high schools and colleges where kids are being taught that the Constitution is a charter of negative rights, they're going to make the assumption the Constitution is oppressive and that it limits them. So if you go out and you name something or call something a charter of negative rights, then you have permission to introduce positive rights. I mean, isn't "positive" better than "negative"? Then the poor, uninformed, ill educated students in our shitty public education system say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, positive rights, positive rights."

I guess you didn't know this. In law school (which Obama went to Harvard's), IT IS CALLED "NEGATIVE LIBERTIES"! IT'S AN ACADEMIC TERM. Why? Because it's telling us and the state what is CANNOT do, which is a negative connotation.

quote:

When he says about the Constituton that what's in there is what the state/federal governments can't do to you, but there's nothing in there about what they can do on your behalf... although it does; It lays out a number of things the government must do on our behalf.... like protecting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and of course it spells these things out. Obama doesn't see it that way. He's saying that it's very limiting. He wants the Constitution to bestow positive rights on the government so the government can do things to you. "The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties that says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you." So he clearly wants a Constitution changed so the federal government, state governments can do something to you. Not FOR you; TO you. He's upset at the fact that there are negative liberties, as he calls them, in the Constitution. But that's precisely what the Bill of Rights is. The Bill of Rights in this Constitution, this country, is founded on the concept of individual liberty. The Constitution limits, legally, what government can do. So if you can't change the Constitution, you pollute the judiciary with people with like-minded views who will rewrite laws and enact what you believe using the Constitution as the basis for doing so. The things he would want to introduce would take away from individual rights and give the government that power. The Fairness Doctrine takes away free speech... that is an anti-Bill of Rights example (why name something fair that's anti-free speech)? You take away an individual's right to bear arms, is anti-Bill of Rights,but to Obama that's a positive right granted to the government. A charter of negative rights is demeaning and a deliberate attempt to destroy the Bill of Rights. That's what Obama wants and that's how he plans to implement his redistribution scheme.

Actually, the constitution never says the government's role is protect life, liberty, and happiness. Neither does the Declaration of Independence. What the constitution does say is what the state CANNOT do.

But what's striking is your assertion Obama wants to change the constitution!! LOL. Based on what premise?

quote:

What Obama wants to do is an anti-Bill of Rights, basically. Or, like a 2nd Bill of Rights that Roosevelt wanted to implement in 1944. Imagine... Roosevelt at the height of his powers could not get this through. But now it’s very possible that Obama and a powerful Democrat majority in Congress will be able to.

Really? Based on what? What comment do you base this, "Obama wants to change the constitution and revoke our rights"? I'm really interested in hearing this...

quote:

Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society, on what will happen if the Democrats get 60 seats in the Senate and nobody is able to stop Obama's judicial appointments.

So Republicans are allowed 6 years of one party rule, but oh no, the Democrats, no, they can't have it.

quote:

He wants judges who understand suffering... who understand poverty. He wants judges to rule on that basis, not the law, not the facts of any cases before them. He wants to know if some poor person's been charged with a crime, they should be exonerated because they're poor, because they're already oppressed. He wants people who will look to adjudicate legal cases not on the basis of the merits, but rather on the basis of socialism and using the federal government... he knows the Constitution, and there's too much time to start changing that around. So just get judges on the bench that will invent law. And when that's all appealed to the US Supreme Court, you've got your judges there to uphold the lower courts. Frightening stuff.

And you conservatives demand pro-life/conservative judges. I get it. Only Republicans are allowed to have one party rule, and only Republicans should be able to choose Supreme Court judges. Got it...

quote:

See, he just doesn't think that Supreme Court can do it, but if you got the right judges on these courts then you can bring about economic change through the courts. Stop and think of that. That is not the purpose of a court anywhere is to bring about economic change! By the way, what is his economic change? He's talking specifically here about oppressed minorities... that is what is motivating him. He is behaving and thinking as though in 2001 this country still is in slavery, like we're still back in the fifties and sixties where he can't go to the lunch counter or sit at the front of the bus.

I think you've exaggerated Obama's stances to suit your own talking points. As if Obama is hell bent on...

a) amending the constitution for some unstated agenda
b) revoke the bill of rights
c) filling the supreme court with "yes" men.

quote:

Thomas Jefferson, April 6th in 1816: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Goddamn man, he's raises taxes for the the highest income earners, and only to Clinton Administration levels. THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE PRESIDENT THE POWER TO RAISE TAXES!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address, March 4th, 1801: "A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

A wise and frugal government huh? Like the last 7 years? It's a shame you want the same decrepit party, which has proven to be totally against what everything Jefferson was for, to remain in power. But I'm not sweating it, because history will be against you come this November 4.

___________________

Last edited by Krypton on Oct-29-2008 at 03:35

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss This is how the change would happen: To Obama and his ilk, negative rights are that the government can't do enough... that it's limited. So, if you have someone like Bill Ayers working up a curricula for high schools and colleges where kids are being taught that the Constitution is a charter of negative rights, they're going to make the assumption the Constitution is oppressive and that it limits them. So if you go out and you name something or call something a charter of negative rights, then you have permission to introduce positive rights. I mean, isn't "positive" better than "negative"? Then the poor, uninformed, ill educated students in our shitty public education system say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, positive rights, positive rights." When he says about the Constituton that what's in there is what the state/federal governments can't do to you, but there's nothing in there about what they can do on your behalf... although it does; It lays out a number of things the government must do on our behalf.... like protecting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and of course it spells these things out. Obama doesn't see it that way. He's saying that it's very limiting. He wants the Constitution to bestow positive rights on the government so the government can do things to you. "The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties that says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you." So he clearly wants a Constitution changed so the federal government, state governments can do something to you. Not FOR you; TO you. He's upset at the fact that there are negative liberties, as he calls them, in the Constitution. But that's precisely what the Bill of Rights is. The Bill of Rights in this Constitution, this country, is founded on the concept of individual liberty. The Constitution limits, legally, what government can do. So if you can't change the Constitution, you pollute the judiciary with people with like-minded views who will rewrite laws and enact what you believe using the Constitution as the basis for doing so. The things he would want to introduce would take away from individual rights and give the government that power. The Fairness Doctrine takes away free speech... that is an anti-Bill of Rights example (why name something fair that's anti-free speech)? You take away an individual's right to bear arms, is anti-Bill of Rights,but to Obama that's a positive right granted to the government. A charter of negative rights is demeaning and a deliberate attempt to destroy the Bill of Rights. That's what Obama wants and that's how he plans to implement his redistribution scheme. What Obama wants to do is an anti-Bill of Rights, basically. Or, like a 2nd Bill of Rights that Roosevelt wanted to implement in 1944. Imagine... Roosevelt at the height of his powers could not get this through. But now it’s very possible that Obama and a powerful Democrat majority in Congress will be able to. Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society, on what will happen if the Democrats get 60 seats in the Senate and nobody is able to stop Obama's judicial appointments. He wants judges who understand suffering... who understand poverty. He wants judges to rule on that basis, not the law, not the facts of any cases before them. He wants to know if some poor person's been charged with a crime, they should be exonerated because they're poor, because they're already oppressed. He wants people who will look to adjudicate legal cases not on the basis of the merits, but rather on the basis of socialism and using the federal government... he knows the Constitution, and there's too much time to start changing that around. So just get judges on the bench that will invent law. And when that's all appealed to the US Supreme Court, you've got your judges there to uphold the lower courts. Frightening stuff. OBAMA (2001): I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Eh, uh, you know, the institution just isn't structured that way. You just said look at very rare examples where during in the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to local district. And the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of Separation of Power issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that, uh, essentially is administrative and -- and takes a lot of time. And the court's just not very good at it and politically it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I mean I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think you can -- any three of us sitting here can come up with a -- a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. See, he just doesn't think that Supreme Court can do it, but if you got the right judges on these courts then you can bring about economic change through the courts. Stop and think of that. That is not the purpose of a court anywhere is to bring about economic change! By the way, what is his economic change? He's talking specifically here about oppressed minorities... that is what is motivating him. He is behaving and thinking as though in 2001 this country still is in slavery, like we're still back in the fifties and sixties where he can't go to the lunch counter or sit at the front of the bus. Thomas Jefferson, April 6th in 1816: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address, March 4th, 1801: "A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

wow....you've obviously never read the constitution. articles I - IV set out how the government is to operate - and generally these provisions don't say that the government must do anything for the people . the amendments are mostly prohibitions on government actions with the exception of trial rights and suffrage (those are the only affirmative rights i can think of without looking). The bill of rights is widely recognized by any person with a legal background as providing negative rights. you should really refrain from talking about legal issues as you usually don't have many correct things to say.


btw....the orange stuff is from the declaration of independence. you are the third person on this forum i've had to correct about that (just ridiculous).

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss No... what the heck? I'm suggesting that for the word "fair" to be taken literally, the same percentage of one's earnings regardless of overall wealth should be paid out in taxes for everyone. For example, lets say it was 10%. If you make $22,000 a year, you pay $2,200 in income taxes... if you make $485,000, you pay $48,500. Having the person who makes 22K pay 4% and the person making $485K pay 18% just because they can is not fair. Poor people don't pay taxes anyway; something like 33% of people don't pay them now. But the government can never do with less, and so they ask us to... and since they can't snatch it from the lower income people, they just say "well fuck the achievers, they can afford it so lets get it from them." It's infuriating.

I'm not going to get into this whole thing, but just out of curiousity, when you guys get raises, assuming constant funding not tied to the business cycle (not reality, I know), do you always get a equivalent percentage increase year after year based on equivalent performance? If you were the boss, would you give your entry levels making $35K per year a 10% raise, then give 10% to an 20 year employee (who by that point would be making an astronomical salary based on those numbers year-to-year?

Or do employers scale those, too?

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I'm not going to get into this whole thing, but just out of curiousity, when you guys get raises, assuming constant funding not tied to the business cycle (not reality, I know), do you always get a equivalent percentage increase year after year based on equivalent performance? If you were the boss, would you give your entry levels making $35K per year a 10% raise, then give 10% to an 20 year employee (who by that point would be making an astronomical salary)? Or do employers scale those, too?

good point. as you know i'm a tax lawyer, so i've probably studied tax policy more extensively than almost anyone on the board, and i've never heard someone analogize the progressive taxing system with the broader system of compensation.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I guess you didn't know this. In law school (which Obama went to Harvard's), IT IS CALLED "NEGATIVE LIBERTIES"! IT'S AN ACADEMIC TERM.

haha, well pointed out krypton! youre exactly right, i believe isiah berlin was one of the first theorists to point out the difference between positive and negative conceptualisations of liberty.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 good point. as you know i'm a tax lawyer, so i've probably studied tax policy more extensively than almost anyone on the board, and i've never heard someone analogize the progressive taxing system with the broader system of compensation.

It is a major reason for the increasing difference between the top 10% and the bottom 10%, right, as most of that difference is caused by investments, not wages?

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I guess you didn't know this. In law school (which Obama went to Harvard's), IT IS CALLED "NEGATIVE LIBERTIES"! IT'S AN ACADEMIC TERM. Actually, the constitution never says the government's role is protect life, liberty, and happiness. Neither does the Declaration of Independence. What the constitution does say is what the state CANNOT do. But what's striking is your assertion Obama wants to change the constitution!! LOL. Based on what premise? Really? Based on what? What comment do you base this, "Obama wants to change the constitution and revoke our rights"? I'm really interested in hearing this... So Republicans are allowed 6 years of one party rule, but oh no, the Democrats, no, they can't have it. And you conservatives demand pro-life/conservative judges. I get it. Only Republicans are allowed to have one party rule, and only Republicans should be able to choose Supreme Court judges. Got it... I think you've exaggerated Obama's stances to suit your own talking points. As if Obama is hell bent on... a) amending the constitution for some unstated agenda b) revoke the bill of rights c) filling the supreme court with "yes" men. Goddamn man, he's raises taxes for the the highest income earners, and only to Clinton Administration levels. THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE PRESIDENT THE POWER TO RAISE TAXES!!!!!!!!!! A wise and frugal government huh? Like the last 7 years? It's a shame you want the same decrepit party, which has proven to be totally against what everything Jefferson was for, to remain in power. But I'm not sweating it, because history will be against you come this November 4.

Sweet jesus. Ok, first, why do you always tie every point you make in a way as though I'm defending the way Bush handled things? You think I was using Jefferson's quote about a frugal government in relation to this last 7 years? LOL!

What else... "yes men" is an interesting term to use. More like, he's going to appoint like-minded justices who believe in social engineering and legislating from the bench. If you want to call them yes men, you can, but they already have their agenda set prior to getting there. And come on man... stop blowing Obama because he went to law school at Harvard. The Unibomber also graduated from Harvard.... and Marxists like Michael Walzer and Stephen Thernstrom were part of the faculty. Everyone knows Harvard is a bastion of far left thought

Enough already with this Democrat mantra about a Republican one party rule. The Republicans did not have 60 seats in the Senate. That is a far different thing if the Democrats pick up 60 seats in the Senate and become the new "one party rule" they and you speak of. You can write the history of the country for the next 25 years in advance if they get 60 seats in the Senate and pick up another 25 to 30 seats in the House of Representatives. Pelosi, by the way, was one of those people crying about one party rule when the Republicans ran the White House and the Senate and the House. The Republican Senate majority was what, one or two votes? Five votes? And we had a bunch of recalcitrant liberal Republicans that voted with the Democrats half the time anyway. Point being, when we had our majority, we undercut ourselves, Gang of 14, all this other nonsense. Pelosi, in the home stretch of the presidential campaign, says, (paraphrasing) "Don't be afraid of Democrat control. In fact, Democrat control will end up being more bipartisan than if Republicans are able to stop us in the Senate." Let me explain what Pelosi means when she says that total Democrat control of government from the White House to the House to the Senate will end up being more bipartisan: It means that she intends to be nicer to Republicans who can't stop her. Bipartisan, as she's defining it, she's not gonna start ripping them as much, she's going to be nicer to them, she'll let them go to the committee hearings now and then, she'll let them have their votes, but only because they're not going to have a chance of stopping anything.

Anyway, my striking assertion that Obama wants to change the constitution? How about his own words on that 2001 interview? Let me break it down for you:

quote:

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that, uh, I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and -- and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

This is him lamenting that the Supreme Court never waded into the redistribution of wealth. That's not the purpose, and that's not the role of the Supreme Court. He is complaining that the Supreme Court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the more basic issues of political and economic justice." Nowadays, the definition of "justice" has become wide open. As many people as you talk to, you can find as many different definitions of it. But when they throw the word "political and economic justice"... this is not legal justice, which is an entirely different thing than political and economic justice, and Obama wants the court to be concerned with economic justice. He wants legal cases that end up before federal courts, including the Supreme Court. He wants judges on those courts to look at economic and political aspects of the case, not the legal definition of justice, because the legal definition of justice is not what he's interested in. Economic justice. Punishing achievers. Labeling them guilty when they haven't done anything.

Now here, he complains that the Warren Court was not radical enough and calls the Constitution "a charter of negative liberties."

quote:

OBAMA: As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted -- and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that.

See, he doesn't like the fact that the Constitution is "a charter of negative liberties." Negative liberties meaning that the Constitution spells out limits on the government. He loves government. He wants the government to have positive rights. He wants the Constitution to bestow positive rights on the government so the government can do things to you.

Now here, he then tells a caller here that he's not optimistic that the court can do this redistributive thing:

quote:

OBAMA: I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Eh, uh, you know, the institution just isn't structured that way. You just said look at very rare examples where during in the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to local district. And the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of Separation of Power issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that, uh, essentially is administrative and -- and takes a lot of time.

So he's just not optimistic. The court is just too bulky. The court cannot do this redistributive thing. It has to be done other ways, and he adds this:

quote:

OBAMA: And the courts just not very good at it and politically it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I mean I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think you can -- any three of us sitting here can come up with a -- a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.

This is why I said this earlier---> He just doesn't think that Supreme Court can do it, but if you got the right judges on these courts then you can bring about economic change through the courts. Stop and think of that. That is not the purpose of a court anywhere; to bring about economic change. By the way, what is his economic change? He's talking specifically here about oppressed minorities. That is what is motivating him. He is behaving and thinking as though in 2001 this country still is in slavery. We're still back in the fifties and sixties where he can't go to the lunch counter or sit at the front of the bus.

and finally he says this:

quote:

OBAMA: I think we can say that, uh, uh, the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and -- and, uh, -- and, uh, that the framers had that same blind spot. I -- I don't think the two viewers are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that, uh, it also, uh, reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

"The fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day," and that fundamental flaw, is the belief that it still exists in this way... But as far as Obama is concerned, the original flaw of slavery still exists in the form of deep seeded racism today, and this is what he and Bill Ayers are busy trying to teach as many young people in America as possible... and if he gets the judges that he wants on all the federal courts, he can redistribute anything we all have, easily as pie, without changing the Constitution at all. So I guess it's more accurate to say he wants to change it, knows he technically can't, but has mastered the round-about art through social engineering and social justice to reach that goal. Man I hope you come to your senses about the direction he wants to take this country... even if it takes his predictably disasterous presidency to show you.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy If you were the boss, would you give your entry levels making $35K per year a 10% raise, then give 10% to an 20 year employee (who by that point would be making an astronomical salary based on those numbers year-to-year? Or do employers scale those, too?

I am the boss where I work And I pay people according to the quality of their work

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I am the boss where I work And I pay people according to the quality of their work

Way to dodge the question by skipping the first part of my statement

quote:

I'm not going to get into this whole thing, but just out of curiousity, when you guys get raises, assuming constant funding not tied to the business cycle (not reality, I know), do you always get a equivalent percentage increase year after year based on equivalent performance?

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss

I like this game, let's see what we can do with it... let's seeeee, I'll do an 80s one.............




Fundamentalists Want to Rule the World

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Way to dodge the question by skipping the first part of my statement

sorry man I wasn't trying to dodge it... I think there are a lot of variables that go into the decision of how much to raise one's pay, and there are thousands of different ways in which companies operate and make those decisions. All I can tell you is how I do it, and being that I run a small business, I can't be as flexable as a big corporation. We give set salaries, and then quarterly bonuses for each individual directly tied to how much profit they brought in to the company for that quarter. Sometimes a person will get a bonus if $2000 one quarter, or $10,000 another quarter. If they are getting a larger bonus, it means that the company is doing more business which means more money for the officers of the company. It motivates the hell out of them, and they don't resent their bosses in a way like they feel as though they're busting their asses to just line our pockes

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Sweet jesus. Ok, first, why do you always tie every point you make in a way as though I'm defending the way Bush handled things? You think I was using Jefferson's quote about a frugal government in relation to this last 7 years? LOL!

Well, Jefferson made a point. Government should be wise and frugal. Yet, you're willing to vote for the party which has been the opposite of that.

quote:

What else... "yes men" is an interesting term to use. More like, he's going to appoint like-minded justices who believe in social engineering and legislating from the bench. If you want to call them yes men, you can, but they already have their agenda set prior to getting there. And come on man... stop blowing Obama because he went to law school at Harvard. The Unibomber also graduated from Harvard.... and Marxists like Michael Walzer and Stephen Thernstrom were part of the faculty. Everyone knows Harvard is a bastion of far left thought

It's a given that when a president chooses a Supreme Court justice, they kind of want that justice to have similar ideological views. I know it's a sin for Democrat presidents to do this, but I digress.

I pointed out Obama's Harvard education because we're talking about the term "negative liberties", which is an academic term taught in LAW SCHOOL, which HARVARD is one of them, and which Obama would henceforth use an academic term such as that one to make a point. Only uneducated fools would believe "negative liberties" of the constitution means the liberties guarenteed in it are a bad thing.

quote:

Enough already with this Democrat mantra about a Republican one party rule. The Republicans did not have 60 seats in the Senate. That is a far different thing if the Democrats pick up 60 seats in the Senate and become the new "one party rule" they and you speak of. You can write the history of the country for the next 25 years in advance if they get 60 seats in the Senate and pick up another 25 to 30 seats in the House of Representatives. Pelosi, by the way, was one of those people crying about one party rule when the Republicans ran the White House and the Senate and the House. The Republican Senate majority was what, one or two votes? Five votes? And we had a bunch of recalcitrant liberal Republicans that voted with the Democrats half the time anyway. Point being, when we had our majority, we undercut ourselves, Gang of 14, all this other nonsense. Pelosi, in the home stretch of the presidential campaign, says, (paraphrasing) "Don't be afraid of Democrat control. In fact, Democrat control will end up being more bipartisan than if Republicans are able to stop us in the Senate." Let me explain what Pelosi means when she says that total Democrat control of government from the White House to the House to the Senate will end up being more bipartisan: It means that she intends to be nicer to Republicans who can't stop her. Bipartisan, as she's defining it, she's not gonna start ripping them as much, she's going to be nicer to them, she'll let them go to the committee hearings now and then, she'll let them have their votes, but only because they're not going to have a chance of stopping anything.

You know who chooses legislators for Congress? ELECTIONS. If the Democrats get a super-majority in Congress, THAT WON'T BE BY ACCIDENT, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN VOTED IN. If you or the Repubs don't want a super-majority, perhaps the party should pay more attention to the wishes of their electorate. I know that's hard to grasp for hardline Republicans, but I have faith you can do it!..

quote:

Anyway, my striking assertion that Obama wants to change the constitution? How about his own words on that 2001 interview? Let me break it down for you: This is him lamenting that the Supreme Court never waded into the redistribution of wealth. That's not the purpose, and that's not the role of the Supreme Court. He is complaining that the Supreme Court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the more basic issues of political and economic justice." Nowadays, the definition of "justice" has become wide open. As many people as you talk to, you can find as many different definitions of it. But when they throw the word "political and economic justice"... this is not legal justice, which is an entirely different thing than political and economic justice, and Obama wants the court to be concerned with economic justice. He wants legal cases that end up before federal courts, including the Supreme Court. He wants judges on those courts to look at economic and political aspects of the case, not the legal definition of justice, because the legal definition of justice is not what he's interested in. Economic justice. Punishing achievers. Labeling them guilty when they haven't done anything.

Nowhere in that phrase did I ever imply from Obama, "I want the courts to redistribute the wealth and change the constitution." If you do have a similar quote, please share it.

quote:

Now here, he complains that the Warren Court was not radical enough and calls the Constitution "a charter of negative liberties."

Maybe you didn't understand the first time. Negative Liberties is an academic term taught in law school and it specifically does apply to the constitution, WHICH IS A CHARTER A NEGATIVE LIBERTIES. It tells the state what it cannot do, which is a negative connotation, hence NEGATIVE liberties. Negative for the state because its their power being limited.

Are you actually trying to tell me you think Obama is going to try to change the constitution??? Do you know what that entails? Article 5 of the constitution states...

quote:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

No chance in hell one man, even if he is president, would be able to change the constitution as he sees fit without having to go through HUGE hurdles to get it, and which, most of the time, a proposed amendment does not pass. The Framers intended amendment to the constitution be difficult for a very good reason you know. Out of 200 proposed amendments, only 33 were passes, and only 27 of that ratified. What you're doing sir, is simple fear mongering.

quote:

See, he doesn't like the fact that the Constitution is "a charter of negative liberties." Negative liberties meaning that the Constitution spells out limits on the government. He loves government. He wants the government to have positive rights. He wants the Constitution to bestow positive rights on the government so the government can do things to you.

He never says, nor could it be implied, that Obama doesn't like the negative liberties of the constitution. He was talking about what government should be doing for its people, not only what it can't do.

If anyone seeks to amend the constitution, let him try. Ultimately, the people's representatives will decide whether to or not. You can thank the founders for making it very difficult to change the constitution. All this redistribute this and that is moot. I really think all this screaming, socialist! Marxist! He's going to redistribute our wealth, blah blah blah, is nothing more than rhetorical fear mongering.

___________________