My side is anyone who holds the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, who doesn't view it as a "living document", that should be taken lightly as a "loose" guideline. Be they, liberal, conservative, or libertarian. Also known as Americans, all others are domestic enemies of the United States.
So... those who support The Air Force, or Paper Money, or even the Right to Vote... all enemies of the US.... interesting...
The Air Force
The Constitution was ratified in 1787, long, long before the advent of the airplane. It provides, specifically, for a navy and an army in Article 1, Section 8. Though they were aware of lighter-than-air flying craft, the Framers could not have reasonably provided for an Air Force. It should be noted at the outset that the Constitution does not provide, specifically, for the other uniformed services, the Marines and Coast Guard. The Marines, however, as an arm of the Navy, could be excepted; and the Constitution does provide for "naval forces," and the Coast Guard could thus be excepted. How, then, do we except the Air Force? The first way is via common sense — the Framers certainly did not intend to preclude the use of new technology in the U.S. military, and because of the varied roles of the Air Force, it makes sense for it to be a separate branch. The second (and less desirable) way is historical — the Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps, an arm of the Army, similar to the Navy/Marine relationship. Basically, unless your interpretation of the Constitution freezes it in 1789, the Air Force is a perfectly constitutional branch of the U.S. military.
So... those who support The Air Force, or Paper Money, or even the Right to Vote... all enemies of the US.... interesting...
The Air Force
The Constitution was ratified in 1787, long, long before the advent of the airplane. It provides, specifically, for a navy and an army in Article 1, Section 8. Though they were aware of lighter-than-air flying craft, the Framers could not have reasonably provided for an Air Force. It should be noted at the outset that the Constitution does not provide, specifically, for the other uniformed services, the Marines and Coast Guard. The Marines, however, as an arm of the Navy, could be excepted; and the Constitution does provide for "naval forces," and the Coast Guard could thus be excepted. How, then, do we except the Air Force? The first way is via common sense — the Framers certainly did not intend to preclude the use of new technology in the U.S. military, and because of the varied roles of the Air Force, it makes sense for it to be a separate branch. The second (and less desirable) way is historical — the Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps, an arm of the Army, similar to the Navy/Marine relationship. Basically, unless your interpretation of the Constitution freezes it in 1789, the Air Force is a perfectly constitutional branch of the U.S. military.
Twist away, out of the list, paper money is probably the only thing that needs addressed. The US Airforce is a branch off the Army. It in no way restricts the liberty of US citizens. Paper money, well that is allowed to be printed at will at the detriment of US citizens. Right to vote adds to liberty, hence the amendment process, in case they missed a liberty.
Originally posted by dennis_6: The US Airforce is a branch off the Army. It in no way restricts the liberty of US citizens. Paper money, well that is allowed to be printed at will at the detriment of US citizens. Right to vote adds to liberty, hence the amendment process, in case they missed a liberty.
That would be you, I established and maintained that Constitutional amendments were not to remove liberty, but to secure liberties in case the founders, missed something. Hate speech laws, gun control on free citizens, federal reserve are all unconstitutional.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-10-2016).]
Too funny.... You pick and choose what you want... just like everyone else. Welcome to the side of common sense
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
That would be you, I established and maintained that Constitutional amendments were not to remove liberty, but to secure liberties in case the founders, missed something. Hate speech laws, gun control on free citizens, federal reserve are all unconstitutional.
Too funny.... You pick and choose what you want... just like everyone else. Welcome to the side of common sense
I haven't picked or chose anything. There was a amendment process put in, but the constitution established liberty was a unalienable right. You can not restrict liberties to feel safe, or to keep people from being offended. The Federal Government is tasked with military defense of the Nation, hence Air force is ok. I know you understand this, but you keep trying to show why its ok for your agenda to trump the constitution. It's not, and as the Constitution is the foundation of this nation, you are technically meeting the definition of Treason, hence domestic enemy.
BTW, the right to vote has existed since 1789, despite the constitution saying all men are created equal, certain people decided that only meant a select group, and it was amended to clarify, much like anti-gunners try to put condition on the second. The US Constitution (1789) stated in Article I, Section II, Clause I:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."
1789 - US Constitution (104 KB)
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XII, ratified by the states in 1791:
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President."
1791 - US Constitution (104 KB)
The US Constitution stated in Amendment VIII, ratified by the states in 1791:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
1791 - US Constitution (104 KB)
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XIV, ratified by the states in 1868:
"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
1868 - US Constitution (104 KB)
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
1870 - US Constitution (104 KB)
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XVII, which was ratified by the states in 1913:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."
1913 - US Constitution (104 KB)
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XIX, which was ratified by the states in 1920:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
1920 - US Constitution (104 KB)
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XXIV, which was ratified by the states in 1964:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
1964 - US Constitution (104 KB)
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XXVI, which was ratified by the states in 1971:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Treason? Oh boy... hang on... let me get my tin-foil hat.
Ok... got it...
YOU are justifying the Air Force. "Defense of this nation" is your defense? It wasn't spelled out in the Constitution, then it shouldn't be here. We could kill everyone who doesn't think like you do... for the defense of this nation. (sadly, I am thinking you would approve, based on your comment about treason.. your beliefs are not what our founding fathers would have wanted, no matter how you spin it).
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
I haven't picked or chose anything. There was a amendment process put in, but the constitution established liberty was a unalienable right. You can not restrict liberties to feel safe, or to keep people from being offended. The Federal Government is tasked with military defense of the Nation, hence Air force is ok. I know you understand this, but you keep trying to show why its ok for your agenda to trump the constitution. It's not, and as the Constitution is the foundation of this nation, you are technically meeting the definition of Treason, hence domestic enemy.
Clause 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Every two years, voters ("Electors") get a chance to cast ballots to determine who will represent them in the House of Representatives. The last bit about "Qualifications requisite" just means that each state must allow anyone who can legally vote in state elections also to vote for US Representative; the states aren't allowed to limit voting rights for US House elections to a small elite.
Treason? Oh boy... hang on... let me get my tin-foil hat.
Ok... got it...
YOU are justifying the Air Force. "Defense of this nation" is your defense? It wasn't spelled out in the Constitution, then it shouldn't be here. We could kill everyone who doesn't think like you do... for the defense of this nation. (sadly, I am thinking you would approve, based on your comment about treason.. your beliefs are not what our founding fathers would have wanted, no matter how you spin it).
What part of a contract that limits the power of the Government do you not get? The Air Force was a branch of the Army, and it in no way threatens the liberty of the governed, but furthers the protection of said governed as the Government was tasked with. I never called for killing anyone, I said it was technically treason. It is, and its not thinking like me, its thinking like the Founding fathers, start researching them, instead of your liberal sources. You will find you have no right to feel safe, and you have no right to not be offended. You most certainly can not take away the rights of others to gain the prior.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-10-2016).]
You are interpreting what YOU think the founding fathers believe... They are not here to ask.
My liberal sources? I gave you content from a Libertarian, and you still don't like it.
So, now the air force doesn't threaten our liberties (so you say), and that is ok, even if it wasn't in the Constitution? Hmmm... that could be an interpretation... whoops.... you said you don't do that
I see... your interpretation of the Constitution (and founding father's thoughts) is right, and the rest of us should be hauled up for treason. Gotcha.
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
What part of a contract that limits the power of the Government do you not get? The Air Force was a branch of the Army, and it in no way threatens the liberty of the governed, but furthers the protection of said governed as the Government was tasked with. I never called for killing anyone, I said it was technically treason. It is, and its not thinking like me, its thinking like the Founding fathers, start researching them, instead of your liberal sources. You will find you h ave no right to feel safe, and you have no right to not be offended. You most certainly can not take away the rights of others to gain the prior.
You are at your worst. I have not seen you this obtuse. Take a breath man.
Not obtuse. LaVoy believed he was right because he also though that his interpretation of the Constitution was correct and the rest of America was wrong. Hmmm...
I defend those that have died for the Constitution. Those that gave their lives so that you and I may have a peaceful dinner at our tables every night. The Constitution of the United States is the one thing protecting us from governmental tyranny. I will not sit and watch you wipe your azz with it. It is extremely annoying that folks like you are destroying this WRITTEN DOCUMENT. This piece of us that makes our collective a nation. I have read every word written in this thread, and you are destroying the fabric that others have died for.
Where am I destroying this document? You have people like Dennis_6 (and yourself) who are interpreting it to fit their needs. Take a look in the mirror before you accuse others You can't have it both ways. Take the Constitution word for word, or allow reasonable interpretation via SCOTUS (which has been happening long before you and I were around).
quote
Originally posted by Tony Kania:
I defend those that have died for the Constitution. Those that gave their lives so that you and I may have a peaceful dinner at our tables every night. The Constitution of the United States is the one thing protecting us from governmental tyranny. I will not sit and watch you wipe your azz with it. It is extremely annoying that folks like you are destroying this WRITTEN DOCUMENT. This piece of us that makes our collective a nation. I have read every word written in this thread, and you are destroying the fabric that others have died for.
Where am I destroying this document? You have people like Dennis_6 (and yourself) who are interpreting it to fit their needs. Take a look in the mirror before you accuse others You can't have it both ways. Take the Constitution word for word, or allow reasonable interpretation via SCOTUS (which has been happening long before you and I were around).
Define reasonable? Does reasonable include intent? Can you not see the difference of allowing for the Air branch of the Army to become its own branch, upholding the requirement of national defense, and restrictions on the 2nd, restrictions on the first, TSA, No knock warrants, no refusal dui checkpoints, CISA, see something say something, BLM and vast permanent, expanding holdings of federal land?
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-10-2016).]
Because I did not say that. You thought that I said that, and even wrote it out like you heard it in YOUR head, but I did NOT say that. I do not like it when you put words in my mouth. Never have. Never will. I think that is where you lose me. When you state what you perceive as facts.
Already covered, discussed and justified. It is a reasonable interpretation based on the wording of the Constitution.
Reasonable to a liberal, Government has no bound interpretation. There is no interpretation, it is not something you can put modern whims on. You have to go with original intent. You have to research history, the founding fathers statements, ideology, historic connotations and let that be the guide. Not what we wish it was, or how we can stretch it to allow something.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-10-2016).]
The Constitution is like the locking doorknobs and small deadbolts used to secure the wood framed doors on most home. The lock is sufficient to stop an honest man from entering your home "by accident"
If we are complaining about the lock on someone else's door, I have to ask what is behind the door that we want of feel entitled to. The Constitution is mostly a set of locks on a paper door. If the people's door is not guarded with understanding and awareness we will end up with a very good lock attached to a gaping hole.
So the question is not whether the Constitution is right or wrong, but is our application of it right or wrong. [example] I accept the fact that Taxation is covered in the Constitution. But I do not see how our current tax code squares with the Constitution.
The only problem with our Constitution is the people who - want to ignore it. - abuse it to manipulate outcomes. - want abolish it. - are ignorant of it's purpose and power.
Because I did not say that. You thought that I said that, and even wrote it out like you heard it in YOUR head, but I did NOT say that. I do not like it when you put words in my mouth. Never have. Never will. I think that is where you lose me. When you state what you perceive as facts.
You and I both know it is your typical response when you disagree with someone
Like if I say "Tony, Muslims are peaceful, loving individuals and their religion is one of peace"... your response?
I have, the Constitution does not allow a armed standoff*. However it also does not allow the BLM to exist or the lands they control.
*Aside from Tyranny, under the circumstances outlined in the decleration of independence. Which, I have stated I agree with the ranchers complaints, but not their handling of the situation.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-10-2016).]
You and I both know it is your typical response when you disagree with someone
...
You quoted me as saying something. My "response" was to direct you that I did not say what you have me saying. You know very well that many read only one response, and that is golden from there on. I did not want to be know as saying something that you perceived.
Great tactic. Upset your opponent with lies. Yes, upset. I say what I mean, and mean what I say. Very few here can claim this.
Where am I destroying this document? You have people like Dennis_6 (and yourself) who are interpreting it to fit their needs. Take a look in the mirror before you accuse others You can't have it both ways. Take the Constitution word for word, or allow reasonable interpretation via SCOTUS (which has been happening long before you and I were around).
So the buck stops with SCOTUS for you? PS. That wasn't a **** you.
I did not mis-quote you. I stated (not quoting you) what I believe you would typically give as a response when you disagree.
quote
Originally posted by Tony Kania:
You quoted me as saying something. My "response" was to direct you that I did not say what you have me saying. You know very well that many read only one response, and that is golden from there on. I did not want to be know as saying something that you perceived.
Great tactic. Upset your opponent with lies. Yes, upset. I say what I mean, and mean what I say. Very few here can claim this.
"If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it." -Chief Justice John Roberts on SCOTUS Gay marriage decision
Even gay people have rights under the Constitution... imagine that.
I see... so SCOTUS has an agenda, but you don't?
quote
Originally posted by dennis_6:
All hail the SCOTUS, who never has a agenda...
"If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it." -Chief Justice John Roberts on SCOTUS Gay marriage decision
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 02-10-2016).]
Even gay people have rights under the Constitution... imagine that.
I see... so SCOTUS has an agenda, but you don't?
Of course I have a agenda, the return to a Constitutional republic. What is yours? Show me where I said they didn't, but yeah salinsky tactics work where logic doesn't, right? The Chief Justice of the US stated the supreme Court ruled without considering the Constitution. What does that say about Scotus rulings?
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 02-10-2016).]
(sadly, I am thinking you would approve, based on your comment about treason.. your beliefs are not what our founding fathers would have wanted, no matter how you spin it).
Take a breath man.
I do not like it when you put words in my mouth. Never have. Never will. 
