It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ararisq
This piece of bile encrusted filth should have stayed over at "Not Geniuses" where he lived up to the name instead he fell even deeper in to the cess pit over at MSNBC. Every word from his mouth in this segment was an uneducated lie not challenged in the slightest by MSNBC which isn't surprising in the least. He gets the Dumb-ass of the Year Award in my book.
Its a revealing statement and one that we've been warning about for 3 years - the argument used to be at a deeper level and they were accused of wanting to violate the constitution and they replied "no, we respect the constitution, its not about that - it about freedom" and then it became "the constitution is irrelevant" and soon it will "freedom is silence, shut up".
Originally posted by Hefficide
This guy is a paid blogger. NOT a Politician or anyone of note. And, yes, he does seem like a pretty uneducated tool.
Just to point out, when he uses the words "no binding power over anything" I do not think he is referring to the Constitution itself - it seems to me that he is referring to the grandstanding act of reading it, for the first time ever, when the 112th Congress is sworn in. It appears he is referring to the act of reading the document and not the document itself.
As for everything else he said - well he's entitled to his opinion. I'm just a bit saddened that he was allowed a platform from which to share it.
~Heff
Originally posted by bozzchem
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
And a star for you as well! You painted that piece of trash in a manner that I failed to do. Much thanks for adding to the thread!! Your post is most deserving of a flag!
edit on 30-12-2010 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ararisq
This piece of bile encrusted filth should have stayed over at "Not Geniuses" where he lived up to the name instead he fell even deeper in to the cess pit over at MSNBC. Every word from his mouth in this segment was an uneducated lie not challenged in the slightest by MSNBC which isn't surprising in the least. He gets the Dumb-ass of the Year Award in my book.
Its a revealing statement and one that we've been warning about for 3 years - the argument used to be at a deeper level and they were accused of wanting to violate the constitution and they replied "no, we respect the constitution, its not about that - it about freedom" and then it became "the constitution is irrelevant" and soon it will "freedom is silence, shut up".
Originally posted by Hefficide
Just to point out, when he uses the words "no binding power over anything" I do not think he is referring to the Constitution itself - it seems to me that he is referring to the grandstanding act of reading it, for the first time ever, when the 112th Congress is sworn in. It appears he is referring to the act of reading the document and not the document itself.
Originally posted by pajoly
Wow. Reading all the reflexive spew is really something. If you people would get your head on right and stop going off half-cocked you will hear he is talking about their action of reading it aloud that has no binding power on anything. he is NOT saying the Constitution has no binding power. Second, he is right about the language being confusing, especially as it is applied to modern circumstances. If it was so simple there'd not be a Supreme Court. Then again, maybe you guys are the real experts.
Originally posted by pajoly
Wow. Reading all the reflexive spew is really something. If you people would get your head on right and stop going off half-cocked you will hear he is talking about their action of reading it aloud that has no binding power on anything. he is NOT saying the Constitution has no binding power. Second, he is right about the language being confusing, especially as it is applied to modern circumstances. If it was so simple there'd not be a Supreme Court. Then again, maybe you guys are the real experts.
Originally posted by ararisq
I don't see how but if you are not right - imagine the implications of the statement - there would be no binding legal basis for the federal government to exist, for freedom of speech, for freedom of religion, for freedom of assembly and association, and so on. The whole damn thing collapses in to "do what we tell you to do or suffer the consequence".
Originally posted by mistafaz
While I don't agree with the man's sentiments on the Constitution, I have to say that I dislike the thought of being bound to a document for the rest of societal existence. I can say that right now the US, as a government, is certainly not adhering to the Bill of Rights or the subsequent amendments to the Constitution but if a future American society feels that some of those amendments are needed to be changed/thrown out they should completely be able to granted there is a consensus to do so.
Definitely not now but in the unforeseeable future, society's attitude towards the Constitution IS going to change for better or worse and the Bill of Rights might just be an insignificant historical document.
Originally posted by hawkiye
You are not bound to the constitution. It is a restriction on government not the people. It can be changed by people as illustrated in the Declaration of Independence. The current de facto congress acts completely outside the scope of authority granted in the organic constitution. It has no right to restrict individuals in thier daily lives. People are free to do as they please as long as they are not harming others or violating thier rights. If they do violate others rights that is handled locally. All else is outside government authority to act on, regulate, or be involved in any way shape or form.
The bill of rights does not grant rights it merely warns government not to violate natural rights. Changing the bill of rights does not take away those rights for they existed before the constitution. They were only illustrated in it as a warning to government to keep their hands off.
If they abolished the second amendment the right to keep and bear arms would not go away. Even the Brits have the right to keep and bear arms despite thier lack of a second amendment. They just have not stood up as a people and claimed and exercised it. This goes for all peoples of the world.
Rights are not granted by written documents they are natural expressions of the people to live in peace and safety and defend it if necassary.edit on 30-12-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by bozzchem
IMO (hey it's my opinion) the vast majority of Progressive Liberals believe exactly what he's saying. Thankfully we have the document to protect us from asshats like that kid, as Progressives gain more and more power our rights will deteriorate faster and faster.. the document is simply the foundation, it's people that need to protect it, less tyrannical self absorbed progressive tools like this guy take them away. Hell after this year I promised to never vote for dems again, as I did last election .. I've never seen such a devastating abuse of trusted power all in the name of corporate profit and personal gains.. hopefully with the new Republican Congress votes will stall and nothing gets done. Because that's my favorite type of Government.. one that can't pass new laws.