Constitutional Double-talk & The GOP

Originally posted by jdub297

With regards to "balanced budget" issues, I believe that we did indeed have a balanced budget under Clinton and a budget surplus to boot.

YES! Because the economy was booming under Reagan, who killed Carter's runaway inflation by CUTTING TAXES!

BS. The Federal Reserve -- under Paul Volcker -- began contracting the money supply in the final year of the Carter Administration. Carter appointed Volcker to combat the inflation which began in 1965. Volcker caused an intentional recession, and the recovery of 1981 was accidental. Volcker again tightened the money supply, causing what was at the time the worst recession since the Great Depression. Reagan's approval rating plunged, Volcker was accused of "murdering" millions of jobs, and Congress considered taking the Federal Reserve under government control. In late 1982, inflation appeared defeated and Volcker sharply lowered rates, allowing the economy to roar to life.

Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economy during their terms. The President usually doesn't.

reply to post by theWCH


Kuddos for you! I decided that, for me, it would be easier to just ignore jdub297 than to respond to his distorted views with regards to our current economic situation.

Apparently he also believes that if something isn't specifically addressed in the constitution, then it can't be a guaranteed right. He doesn't even realize that the purpose of the constitution, other than The Bill of Rights, was not to specifically list our rights, but rather to lay out a framework of things that our government could not do because doing so may infringe upon our rights.

I think he could also use a crash course in the history of Freddie & Fannie from 1938 to the present and the effects of deregulation on the home mortgage industry, Wikipedia would be a good source.

Anyway, thanks for taking the energy to respond. Although, I have to say that with this guy, I think you may be pissing into the wind.

In reality no Dems or GOP people by today's standards were members of The Continental Congress as back then both were the same party.

Every politician and thier mother will claim to wish to change The Constitution but the reality is that we control what rights we have and do not have as that cannot ever taken away from us.

As long as we do not let them take one single millimetre as they will take a kilometre as they always try to do.

The 13th and 17th Amendments as well as the rest of the Holy Sacred Text is forever and eternal. The way it's written prevent it from being a victim of it's own design.

We control that. No one else.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

Today on Hardball, Chris Matthews asserted that the GOP has proposed 42 constitutional amendments during this, the 111th congress, and that's only since January 3, 2009. I'm telling you, pretty soon they will come right out and say that they "want to start with a clean sheet of paper."

This is a direct vindication of my original assertion in this thread which is that, regardless of how much the GOP pretends to defend the constitution in their day to day rhetoric, they would change it at the drop of a hat if they were allowed.

Today's republican party is scarier than any muslim terrorist could ever dream to be. A terrorist attack directly affects only those unfortunate enough to be at ground zero while reconstruction of the constitution would adversely affect us all.

Interesting view upon the situation presented here. As someone who chooses to involve himself into politics, I would be considered a conservative, but not of today's standards nor of even Reagan standards. My upbringing and knowledge of the Conservative movement lies with persons such as Barry Goldwater.

Given that, you have bashed attempts to repeal/amend portions of the Constitution, but that is the process. Most of them will never make it out of committee and are usually for show for the people back home come reelection time.

Nonetheless, proposing a Constitutional amendment should not be demonized as you have done here. As specifically stated in Article V of the Constitution:

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;...

I will agree to an extent with your general notion of doublespeak, but it doesn't only derive from the republicans and conservatives. Democrats and liberals attempt the same notion, but through legislation and hopes that the popular, read majority, will accept such pushes and not challenge the law against the Constitution.

Examples of such would be how some States and localities push near arms prohibition with total disregard of the 2nd Amendment. Granted up until the most recent ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller, it was generally accepted that the Bill of Rights applied to the Federal Government and not directly to State Governments. The logic behind this is order of precedence; US Constitution > State Constitutions.

Rather than propose a disastrous amendment that would limit ownership and the right to bear arms, most politicians, of all sides of the spectrum will sidestep and make chicanery of their words and the Constitution.