It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says American People Should "Have a Voice"

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:02 PM

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I don't agree with the current GOP saber-rattling about auto-refusing any nominees. The Senate should have hearings. And if they don't like the nominee, don't approve him/her. Point out all their dangerous rulings, and give them the Bork treatment if necessary. It's pretty easy.

I've said the same thing elsewhere today.

I.e. WE AGREE ... are you terrified?


posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:13 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

The problem there was that the principle of judicial review was not yet fully established. Now our problem is not that the judicial review of laws based upon their constitutionality is not fully established, the problem is now the courts are being stacked and instead of the true constitutionality of laws being discussed, the constitution is being reinterpreted according to partisan opinion.

In a way, we are back to the problem back then, since back then it is said that the federal courts were stacked with federalist judges and so the people had no voice. We are coming to another stacking of the courts, except now, the judicial review has been fully established.

How else do you suppose it possible, based on constitution, for the federal government to make a law that all citizens must buy a privately held product, or face federal fines?

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:23 PM
a reply to: Kitana

"True constitutionality" sounds a little much like "true belief" to me ... and more than a bit "cultish."

By "the problem there" you are referring to Adams with a Federalist Congress at heel? I disagree; see Hylton v. United States (1796) ... although Marbury v. Madison (1803) certainly made the point more strongly.

Good gravy. I'm not going to debate Obamacare again. With all due respect.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:25 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

lol. I didn't expect you to. Anyway, I will reply tomorrow as I am able. I am out for the night, marking my place and what I need to reply to.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:50 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So, you're going under the long-standing standard of kindergarten jurisprudence then?

"They did it to us first!"


And you just excuse what was done previously?

If you had no problem with it then, why now?

They kicked the door open, don't get mad that another walks through it.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:04 PM
a reply to: poncho1982

Kicked the door open? Okay, I'll give you that ... but this is more like kicking the door of our Republic open, throwing gasoline over everything and tossing in a match ...

Please share with us that time that the Democratic Majority Leader said to a Republican President ... "Nope, we're going to wait for the next guy, you don't get to do what the Constitution CLEARLY says you can do."

I'll wait.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:38 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're right.

Even worse: that there is an apparent need to compare one party with the other here. Unacceptable is unacceptable.

We seem to be at a point where "turn about is fair play" has become an official policy of all our nationally elected officials. You can find soundbites for the leaders of both parties decrying the use of some dirty trick by the other party (like a filibuster), alongside them doing the exact opposite a few years prior.

I swear its like WWE. Except there is no contact. But every time you put a mic in front of one of our elected officials, you get something like this:

And then we all come to various internet forums to argue his points pro and con.

"He should tell people to know their role. That obviously racist"

"Oh yeah, what about when Ric Flair said that, AND declared himself to be "The Nature Boy". He obviously is displaying hubris"

"Take that back!!!!"

etc, etc.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:42 PM
Even more ridiculous are the metaphors that are used. I saw "kicked the door open" above and it reminded me to bring this into the discussion....

Terms like "the nuclear option", or "the gloves have come off"...these metaphors and hyperboles are just absolutely ridiculous. Its debate, for crying out loud. Its not a flying elbow off the top turnbuckle. Its not Mike Tyson biting off MItch McConnell's ear. Its debate.

Its silly, and its destructive.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:43 PM
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

LOL ... a very apt comparison!

You know ... there are people that swear professional wrestling is "real."

They'll even fight you over it.

I'd never thought of it like that.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:54 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you want to have a really good time, just sit and make up wrestler names for them for amusement. It'll pass a good 10-15 minutes, if nothing else.

Rather than share some here and risk being perceived as a political troll, ill leave you all with a fun personal activity.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 10:04 PM

originally posted by: Kitana
As to the rest, I don't think we have ever been quite this polarized before. Until these last 60 years or so, it was not quite this bad. Its been getting worse and worse, and more and more we are rewriting the definitions to be whatever we want.

It's honestly the fault of voter pushes. The partisan divide is largely advanced by getting people more involved in picking a specific team and cheering for them. We would be much better off if only half the people who turn out to vote these days actually did so.

The founders were correct when they limited voting to specific people. It prevented the ordinary person from outright hating their fellow countryman.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 10:21 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I said we were polarized from the start. Each side always tries to claim the "grass roots" for their side, or that they are the only ones truly acting on behalf of The People. Do you think that any "polarization" requires a populist "side"?

1) The "COTUS" was hardly "slimed in" by Federalists, you may have heard of James Madison.
2) The Federalists are not the point of what I claimed. I gave an example to another member of just how contentious and divided things have always been right from the start.
3) This really isn't the place to explore your disdain for our Constitution.

Polarization implies that there are two, and only two, ways to arrange everything under the sun.

Polarization is propaganda, the selling of the lesser of two evils.

Madison departed the Federalists in the 1790's when it became apparent that Hamilton wanted an actual central government. The term "Federal" connotes an association of independents, not a single nation. The Federalists were lying about the intention and necessity for the COTUS. The Feds made a slip knot on power in America.

The Anti-Federalists always claimed that the government of the COTUS would gather power to itself and distance itself from the local and state checks on its power. Madison swore that would never happen because of the limitations of enumerated powers. Madison thought that the limitations on the Government of the Constitution were so obvious that the Bill of Rights was not necessary and actually harmful by calling attention to some rights specifically, when all rights were to be kept by the people and the states. Madison was a philosophical Federalist i.e. strength through cooperation of equals, he was not a national government Federalist.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 10:54 PM
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Polarization recognizes that in virtually every situation in which people are involved, all the possible choices are gathered into two perceived "opposites" : in/out, up/down, black/white, hot/cold, etc.etc. It's the way the human brain works.

You can self-define words all day long to fit your argument.

James Madison was the Democratic-Republican Secretary of State with Thomas Jefferson, and the Democratic-Republican Fourth President of the United States. Not only is he considered the "Father of the Constitutions" but in his leadership opposing the financial maneuverings of Hamilton, he is also considered to have co-founded the Democratic Republicans.

More of your self-definition of words. The Constitution replaced the Articles because the Confederation was failing ... miserably.

Madison FOUGHT for the Bill of Rights in Congress, heck he is also known as "the Father of the Bill of Rights."

Now you're blatantly ignoring the truth.

Dance Semi, dance, LOL ... so Madison wasn't an actual Federalist ... just the co-founder of the first formal Opposition Party to the Federalists. I suppose Jefferson was also a philosophical, not-exactly-or-at-all-just-convenient-to-your-argument "Federalist" too?

edit on 15-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 11:55 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Bill of Rights was a loss leader to sell the Constitution. Madison wanted to sell the Constitution.

How was the Constitution different than the "miserably failing" Articles of Confederation?

Only by the addition of a commerce clause according to Madison Federalist 45

If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of new powers to the Union, than in the invigoration of its original powers. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation.

The clause that the Supreme Court interprets as giving Federal Government the power to do anything was the only change between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

"Since the infamous Wickard v. Fliburn case, the feds use the commerce clause to justify virtually unlimited intrusion into nearly every corner of American life. From regulating the nation’s entire health care system to waging a “war on drugs,” federal agents wield power over the states and the people via the commerce clause.

Rep. John Yarmuth reluctantly admitted the truth during a radio interview in August 2010. The show host asked the Kentucky Democrat: what can’t the federal government do if it can mandate Americans must purchase health insurance.

'It really doesn’t prohibit the government from doing virtually anything – the federal government. So I don’t know the answer to your question, because I am not sure there is anything under current interpretation of the commerce clause that the government couldn’t do,' Yarmuth replied. "

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 12:00 AM

originally posted by: fshrrex
a reply to: xuenchen

Sorry cant change the rules in the Fourth Quarter.

Except, the "rules" and precedence was set by...wait for it....Team Blue! Senate Resolution 334

Its not changing anything in the 4th quarter...and if it was, it is politics; there are no quarters.

posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 12:08 AM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Kitana

Read about what happened in Adams' term ... the "Alien and Sedition Acts" ...

We were right out of the gate far far more polarized than we are (yet) in 2016.

The Alien and Sedition Act is unfortunate and a definite black mark on American and President Adams' presidency. But non can deny the battles fought by Mr. Adams et. al. in great depths (unlike our current and recent crop) to the meaning of self-governance.

posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 12:15 AM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Senate Majority Leader and several leading Republican Presidential Candidates have suggested that the Senate prevent Mr. Obama from his Constitutional duty. I'm not sure how that can be ignored.

Nothing can stop the President from doing his duty; nominating an Officer of the United States under Article II:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

No one is denying the Executive their duty or charge; they are denying the privilege of Article II, in which consent is granted by the Senate.

posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 01:57 AM
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So now Madison DID Have something to do with the Bill of Rights? Okay, that's not what you claimed previously.

You seem confused.

posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 02:00 AM

originally posted by: ownbestenemy1

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Kitana

Read about what happened in Adams' term ... the "Alien and Sedition Acts" ...

We were right out of the gate far far more polarized than we are (yet) in 2016.

The Alien and Sedition Act is unfortunate and a definite black mark on American and President Adams' presidency. But non can deny the battles fought by Mr. Adams et. al. in great depths (unlike our current and recent crop) to the meaning of self-governance.

You have to love the rhetorical flourish of phrases like "no one can deny."

Of course it can be denied. Adams was an aristocrat ... like most of the "current and recent crop." Notice, however, that I pointed to Adams' Presidency as a time-frame for the "Alien and Sedition Acts" which do, clearly, demonstrate a clear and serious divide in the early government which has continued, very clearly, to our own day.

posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 02:02 AM
a reply to: ownbestenemy1

What is it again that you think Article II actually does?

Where does the Constitution outline the powers and responsibilities of the Presidency?

What are you quoting from again? Is it Article II?

You also seem confused.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in