Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Quote of the Day

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as
a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be
bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the
new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a
national constitution."

---James Madison

Unless of course our "progressive" friends manage to find a judge somewhere who says otherwise, and dreams up new and improved "rights" and "privileges" that never existed in the original.

12 comments:

  1. Ah, so you are against a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage?

    You oppose federal legislation that would requires states to honor each other's cancelled weapons permits?

    You surely objected to the Supreme Court decision of Bush v Gore which took interpretation of state election law out of the hands of the state of Florida, right?

    The notion that those pesky liberals are an affront to federalism is a canard , eagerly swallowed by unthinking partisans. The right is perfectly content to trample on states' sovereignty when it suits their purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Ah, so you are against a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage? "

    The non-sequiturs from Roch keep on coming......

    "The notion that those pesky liberals are an affront to federalism is a canard , eagerly swallowed by unthinking partisans. The right is perfectly content to trample on states' sovereignty when it suits their purposes."


    Ah, such flowery prose! It uses lots of words and says nothing at all!

    Keep on posting, Roch......your comedic value is priceless.

    But please, won't you try to improve the bottom dwelling intellectual level of your contribution?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Unless of course our "progressive" friends manage to find a judge somewhere who says otherwise, and dreams up new and improved "rights" and "privileges" that never existed in the original."

    So am I to understand by this statement that you feel that if a right is not specified in the Constitution, it does not exist?

    ReplyDelete
  4. You only understand that at your intellectual peril, Stew.

    Certain rights are enumerated in the Constitution, and those not enumerated are left to the people, as expressed by the people's representitives in the various legislatures.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ah, I think I see... when you said "dreams up new and improved 'rights' and 'privileges' that never existed in the original" I thought you were referring to dreaming up rights for the people, but you were actually referring to dreaming up rights for the federal government.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No, Stew, that's NOT what I said.

    If you're looking to get a "Gotcha" question in, you need to do MUCH better than that.

    But if you want to look less like someone who enjoys starting useless and petty arguments, you really DO need to change your approach.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Whatever. I tried to make sure I understood your position before commenting on it, but you seem more interested in dodging questions and avoiding commiting to something than in communicating clearly.

    Apparently, based on your last two responses, the rights and privileges you're talking about relate neither to the people nor to the government, so I really don't know what you're talking about. As I've said before, if it seems that everyone is always missing your point, as you are constantly claiming, maybe the communication problem is on your end.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Read it again, Stew.

    I said no such thing. Your continued insistence on this line of "questioning" shows your lack of serious intellectual capability when it comes to legitimate discussion of Constitutional issues.

    Yet you continue to try to shift the blame for your failures in this area?

    Why is that?

    You are either poorly educated on these things, or you're a slavish devotee to some sort of warped mindset.


    Either way, I am tired of your continued obtuseness on this matter. I no longer care to humor you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's fine if you want to bail out of yet another discussion. I tried to clarify and understand, but all you say is "no, that's wrong" and get snippy. Why are you afraid to explain yourself better? Why not give a few examples of "dreamed up" rights and privileges so we can see what you're talking about?

    It's like that old saying - if you won't explain it then we can't understand it. If you can't explain it then you don't understand it.

    Your blog, your last word. Have fun patting yourself on the back.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The direction of comments on this thread from Roch and you do not speak well of the type of approach you want to use to counter what I say. It doesn't speak well of you or your weak rationalization seen in your last post.

    Your constant attempt to put words in other people's mouths, and to distort what was actually said does not endear you to me. I tire of having to say the same thing time in and time to to you.

    You and Roch are both cut from the same mold. Henceforth, I will treat you with the same level of respect that your words and tactics indicate you deserve to receive.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If you can't defend your original post by expounding on it Bubba, you have no right to cast aspersions on Roch and Stew. Either put your money where your mouth is or clam up.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Either put your money where your mouth is or clam up."

    Listen to who's talking!

    We've already established YOUR M.O. on the "global warming" thread at Cone's. Looks like the quality of your contribution hasn't improved any since you got here, either.

    I'm sick and tired of the silly word games and "gotcha" type questions played in the area of Constitutional rights and privileges. We've been through this before, and I will not repeat the wasted experience again.

    If you, Stew, and Roch want to continue discussing it, fine. You'll be doing all among yourselves until you engage in honest debate.

    ReplyDelete