Skip to main content

The tea party mantra: Noun, verb, unconstitutional.

Writing for the Center for American Progress, Ian Millhiser looks at the tea party agenda for the Constitution, and it ain't pretty.
While the House of Representatives pushes Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to phase out Medicare, numerous members of Congress, a least one Supreme Court justice, and the governor of America’s second-largest state now proudly declare that most of the progress of the last century violates the Constitution.

It is difficult to count how many essential laws would simply cease to exist if the Tea Party won its battle to reshape our founding document, but a short list includes:

  • Social Security and Medicare
  • Medicaid, children's health insurance, and other health care programs
  • All federal education programs
  • All federal antipoverty programs
  • Federal disaster relief
  • Federal food safety inspections and other food safety programs
  • Child labor laws, the minimum wage, overtime, and other labor protections
  • Federal civil rights laws

Indeed, as this paper explains, many state lawmakers even embrace a discredited constitutional doctrine that threatens the union itself.

It's a radical agenda, and just a glimpse into why the tea party continues to plummet in polling.

But what's important to recognize when looking at this extremist movement is that it's not really just the tea party we're talking about—it's the Republican party. Sure, not every Republican is going to talk about Social Security and Medicare as unconstitutional programs, but they are just as committed to seeing those programs end as any "crazy" in a tricorn hat.

"Establishment" Republicans can't be let off the hook for their own extremism by applying the label "tea party" to other Republicans, when the only distinction between the two groups is that the tea party faction is willing to say the crazy stuff Republicans believe out loud.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Fri Sep 16, 2011 at 02:31 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tea party = Republican party (14+ / 0-)

    Where do 'tea party' candidates run? In Republican primaries.

  •  Why do teabaggers hate America? nt (7+ / 0-)

    'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

    by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Fri Sep 16, 2011 at 02:41:16 PM PDT

  •  It's the Same 60's Rightwing Movement That's Never (16+ / 0-)

    changed, just has grown. With protective progressive taxation stripped away, most of the nation's wealth has returned to the rich where it was a century ago, and they have the horsepower to finish off their work.

    They are ending absolutely all promotion of the general welfare. They're against all of it, the entire concept.

    They've always said so, their message has never varied although they haven't always made it public.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Sep 16, 2011 at 02:44:00 PM PDT

  •  They confuse the Constitution (6+ / 0-)

    with the Articles of Confederation.  How many of them have even heard of Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden?

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

    by Navy Vet Terp on Fri Sep 16, 2011 at 02:52:51 PM PDT

  •  What they support (8+ / 0-)

    Based on this list, what they support is those things that will result if they get what they want.

    Social Security and Medicare Homelessness, poverty, and chronic illness for senior citizens
    Medicaid, children's health insurance, and other health care programs Sickness for the poor, especially poor children.
    All federal education programs Illiteracy and ignorance, especially about science and government.
    All federal antipoverty programs Poverty. Not nearly enough people live and die in poverty.
    Federal disaster relief Death, destruction, and permanent abandonment of areas of the country devastated by natural disasters.
    Federal food safety inspections and other food safety programs Death from food-borne illness and deliberate adulteration by profit-minded manufacturers.
    Child labor laws, the minimum wage, overtime, and other labor protections Working children to death, death from unsafe working conditions, wage theft, and slave wages.
    Federal civil rights laws Rights for rich people only.

    •  IOW (0+ / 0-)

      They want to turn back 1,000 years of progress, reverting to a feudal society.

      The rank and file don't realise that they're the ones who are going to be at the bottom of the pile, while the rich will become the aristocrats living in the castles and eating the venison and partridge pies. By the time they realise that they have been shafted, it will be too late for the whole of society.

      Welcome to the Tea Party's World!

      FOSI: Full Of Shit Information - Both my sister and I are trivia freaks...

      by Spoc42 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 05:50:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I love this! (7+ / 0-)
    The tea party mantra: Noun, verb, unconstitutional.

    It's the maddest of Mad Libs!

    Ironically the Congress woman who said that health care appeared nowhere in the Constitution doesn't realize that she's arguing in favor of the Post Office which is mentioned in the Constitution.  Yet Republicans hate that, too.

    I know many Kossacks feel that the Post Office is a thing of the past, but as long as FedEx, UPS and other shippers are looking to take your money for their services, there must be a place for the Post Office.

  •  I always want to ask Conservatives... (10+ / 0-)

    If you hate the First, 10th, 14th, 16th Amendments...  then how can you support a "Balanced Budget Amendment" if it wasn't in the original Constitution?

    Is the Constitution a living document?

    If not... why do they support the 2nd Amendment?  

    This is a crisis I knew had to come, Destroying the balance I'd kept. Doubting, unsettling and turning around, Wondering what will come next.
    --Ian Curtis

    by jethrock on Fri Sep 16, 2011 at 03:04:56 PM PDT

    •  I will answer you (0+ / 0-)

      In reverse chronological order:

      I support the 2nd Amendment.  I am one of those people that the "right to keep and bear arms" is not infringed.

      The Constitution is a "living document (your words)" insomuch as it is edited or amended via the very specific constitutional process.  This has been done 27 times.

      I do not hate the 1st Amendment.  I assume you are referring to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  The key operating word in the quoted text is "CONGRESS".  It does not say "Texas", "Omaha", or "United School District 123"; it says "Congress".

      I do not hate the 10th Amendment.  In fact this is one of my favorite Amendments.  The "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".  The Federal Government should stay out of the State's chili (with the exception of the powers the States gave the Federal Government in the Constitution or gave / will give the Federal Government via Amendments)...I totally agree!

      I do not hate the 14th Amendment.  Again I assume you are talking about "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside".  The problem that I, and most other conservatives, have surrounding this amendment is not the amendment itself, but rather the selective misapplication of the amendment.  Most liberals ignore that whole "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part that is a requisite of U.S. Citizenship.

      Now, you got me on this one...I do hate the 16th Amendment.  I hate paying taxes and you do too.  Anyone who says otherwise is lying.  But, I understand that the federal government has to have money to run itself.  My problem is not with the federal government taxing you and I, but rather the amount and the method they use to tax you and I.  That is a whole different debate.

      The founding fathers were very specific in their intent to create a Constitution that doesn't grant the Federal Government power, but rather limits it.  The more Federal Government we have, the less life, liberty, and pursing of happiness we have.  They are directly disproportionate.

      •  Support all the 2nd Amendment and your cred (3+ / 0-)

        as pro-Constitutional might seem more legit. If you don't mind we make sure each citizen bearing arms is part of a well-regulated militia in order to exercise that right to bear arms, we can probably shake hands on that.

        As for the 1st Amendment, why we'd want any unit of government, local or federal, legislating any religion and imposing it on any citizen or their children seems totally at odds with what the framers intended.  Separation of powers is a central concept of our Republic. The powers of the church are to be separate (and limited) from those of government (also limited).  Religious beliefs and rites accepted within a voluntary association/assembly, and as a matter of privacy, is one thing.  Instituting a 'civil cult' and doctrine requiring citizen conformity by any agent of the government is a line not to be crossed.  If there is a 'dominant' religion this is exactly why all citizens are entitled to and indeed deserve protection from harassment by the state and fellow misguided citizens regarding adherence.

        I'm not sure what your points are about the 10th & 14th Amendments.  I'd appreciate clarification on this.

        And as for the 16th, indeed, we  agree there will be disagreements on methods and amounts of federal taxes to be assessed, but as long as increasing taxes from the disproportionately under-taxed rich and corporations is 'on the table', we can be enthusiastic about achieving a better overall approach

        Do you also have opinions about maintaining a standing army?  Or the Patriot Act?

        When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

        by antirove on Fri Sep 16, 2011 at 08:11:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Typo...? (0+ / 0-)

          what does this mean?  "Support all the 2nd Amendment and your cred as pro-Constitutional might seem more legit."

          "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

          I support this amendment in its entirety, from "A" to the "." at the end...I should now be granted credibility according to your criteria.

          •  But we don't have militias (0+ / 0-)

            we have a "standing army", something the founders wanted to specifically avoid. They envisioned the second amendment as a means of civilians protecting themselves (law enforcement) and the state from invading forces or undemocratic government.

            Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

            Since we already have a standing Army, an Air Force and a Navy, we don't need well regulated militias anymore.

            By the way, I support the right of private citizens to own guns, not because of the second amendment, but as part of a free society. But like cars, all guns should be registered, owners should be licensed, and there should be background checks and waiting periods after purchase.

            You will never know what it’s like to work on a farm until your hands are raw, just so people can have fresh marijuana. Jack Handey

            by skohayes on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 03:00:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We do have Militias (0+ / 0-)

              The are the state guards and the air guards.  They report to the state governors.  We do need them.  I am an expert on this subject.  Take my word for it.

              •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lyta

                Having been in some really bad flooding, the NC Nat'l Guard troops were GREAT. Many Guard troops from across the country performed admirably over in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though they were poorly equipped and supplied for foreign combat.
                However, the Founding Fathers envisioned private unpaid citizens with rifles and shotguns in the closet who could come together to fight off invaders, or threats to the citizens, not an organized and armed army supplied with billions of dollars of equipment and supplies.
                And the Guard is an organized and armed army, but if you want to call it a militia, go ahead. That's semantics.

                You will never know what it’s like to work on a farm until your hands are raw, just so people can have fresh marijuana. Jack Handey

                by skohayes on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 03:53:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The founding fathers couldn't have envisioned... (0+ / 0-)

                  Nukes, Aircraft Carriers, Modern Jet Propulsion, Chemical Warfare, Air to air missile kinematics..."private unpaid citizens with rifles and shotguns in the closet who could come together to fight off invaders, or threats to the citizens" isn't going to work.

        •  I'll try to answer all the points you bring up. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lyta

          1st Amendment:  

          Again, I reiterate, the constitution says "CONGRESS" and nobody else is prohibited from making any  "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  I happen to agree with your assessment of the need for "separation between church and state" (by the way, that phrase is not in the constitution, but rather an obscure letter from Jefferson to a Baptist church), but the framers only separated the church from the State (U.S.) not the church from the states (Rhode Island, Kansas...).  Now, all states are free to do what they see fit to put into their state constitutions about the matter and most have similar phrases, but I support the state as a body of state citizens being able to decide the prominence of religion in state matters.  If you don't like it, you move to a different state.  That is the design.

          10th Amendment:

          I felt that I was pretty clear on this one.  The powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states. I love this one.  Again, referencing the words I typed on the first amendment, each state should be allowed to experiment with its own laws and when people don't like it they leave.  As Reagan said: "vote with your feet".  You can't vote with your feet if each state isn't allowed to be its own entity.  Otherwise you just move from Virginia to New Hampshire and are subject to the same stifling, overstepping Federal powers.

          14th Amendment:

          To avoid typing the same stuff again I will quote my previous text and then expound.  

          I said:
           "I do not hate the 14th Amendment.  Again I assume you are talking about "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside".  The problem that I, and most other conservatives, have surrounding this amendment is not the amendment itself, but rather the selective misapplication of the amendment.  Most liberals ignore that whole "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part that is a requisite of U.S. Citizenship."

          I expound with a story:
          I lived in Del Rio, Texas for 6 years.  If you GoogleEarth it, you will notice that it borders Mexico and there is bridge that crosses the Rio Grande from Ciudad Acuna into Del Rio.  I have walked it several times.  There is a line painted right across the middle, perpendicular to the bridge, that marks the border between Mexico and the United States.  Here are the coordinates: 29°19'35.67"N 100°55'40.32"W.  You can kinda see see the line right there connecting where the "curb" of the bridge changes from dark to light.  You can also see that both the Mexican and American border patrol checkpoints are on the extreme southern and northern ends of the bridge, respectively.  It is possible to be "in America" without legally passing through the border patrol checkpoint, because you can stand on the American side of the line and still be 3,182 feet from being legally checked into the country.
          A rather regular occurrence is for a Mexican woman in labor to walk to that line and sit down one foot inside of the U.S. border.  Sometimes the ambulance from Val Verde Regional Medical Center in Del Rio gets there first, sometimes it doesn't.  To my knowledge there averages about one birth a week right there, one foot to the north of that line.
          Now, call me silly, but I do not think that child should be a U.S. citizen.  He or she has met only one of the two requisites for American citizenship (obviously the kid can still be naturalized, via the legal naturalization process later on in life, I am rather talking about citizenship by virtue of birth here).  The kid was technically born "in the United States"  I can't argue that...the bloodstain is right there, twelve inches north of the border.  The second half of the 14th Amendment is what gets ignored by illegal immigration supporters because it is very inconvenient to their argument.  That kid was born in the U.S., but not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  His mother was not in the U.S. legally, or rather, she had not yet subjected herself to the jurisdiction thereof; remember she and her child are still 1/2 mile south of the border patrol checkpoint.  She has not allowed herself or her child to be subjected to the jurisdiction of the United States yet.  She has intentionally remained outside of the jurisdiction, outside the rules.  
          One could by a Cuban cigar in Mexico and smoke it as he was walking north across the same bridge.  Then, extinguish it on the sidewalk just outside of the door of the U.S. checkpoint and throw it in the ash tray.  You could smoke a Cuban cigar in America, technically, but not be arrested because you were not yet "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
          So the question becomes, when does one become "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?  If one intentionally subverts subjugation by avoiding legal check-in to this country by sitting one foot inside of America for one minute and then has a baby, I submit they nor their child are yet "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  What about two feet for two minutes?  Ten feet for ten minutes? What if they walk around the checkpoint (that is happening as I type) and stay 10 miles in for an hour?  100 miles in for ten years?  No.  Again, if a person intentionally subverts subjugation by avoiding legal check-in to this country and then has a baby, they have, for themselves and their child, intentionally chosen not to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore do not meet the requirement of citizenship by birth.

          16th Amendment:

          You and I disagree on how we are taxed, not if the Federal government has the power to tax us (they do).  I don't feel like typing on this one: we will not convince each other of the merits of our preferred tax systems and methods.

          I am glad that you seem to be a intelligent liberal, I do not get to talk to many in my line of work.  The ones I do get to have political discussions with seem rather dull and dumb and are more interested in solving problems not for the sake of the betterment of our society, but rather because it makes them feel good.  That is how most liberals, in my opinion, measure the success or failure of public policy:  Do I feel better?  Did I make a difference?  That is dangerous.

          Thanks for reading.

          •  Gotta give you some credit here, Joe (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lyta

            You're obviously of above average intelligence.  Coming here to DKos and giving a conservative's view on various constitutional amendments and such is bold.  But, I have to give you credit.  Much of what you've posted is credible and well presented.  Some here won't agree with this (or even like me saying it for that matter) but I'd bet the the majority of regular mainstream democrats that go about their lives without being encumbered with politics as many of us Kossacks are here would agree with much of what you've said here in your posts.  

            - If you don't like gay marriage, blame straight people. They're the ones who keep having gay babies.

            by r2did2 on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 02:59:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  And because of your arrogance... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        myboo, liberalej
        I am glad that you seem to be a intelligent liberal, I do not get to talk to many in my line of work.  The ones I do get to have political discussions with seem rather dull and dumb and are more interested in solving problems not for the sake of the betterment of our society, but rather because it makes them feel good.

        ...you have nothing worthwhile to say to me.

        •  I came here to learn (0+ / 0-)

          and learn I have...I assumed there were very few intelligent liberals out there who could articulate their position using logic, factual evidence, and within the framework of human incentive structure.  I was wrong.  There are more than I thought.  You are not one of them.  You react emotionally to my words and take them as a personal attack without really considering the context.  As I said, I do not work with many liberals and due to the nature of my work, the ones that I have the occasion to interact with are often ill informed and as I put it "dull and dumb".  I am a sheep in a lion's den here at DailyKos and I am doing it with the intent of learning how liberals think.  I will file your reply under the category "preconceived notions".

      •  What does this even mean? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pat bunny, davboyce
        Most liberals ignore that whole "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part that is a requisite of U.S. Citizenship.

        If they're citizens they have to follow our laws. No Liberal is going to argue that one, don't be silly.

        And no, I don't hate paying taxes, what I hate is paying stupid taxes. Paying taxes is the price of living in a civilized society with public education, law enforcement, highways and roads, etc.
        Dumping taxes on people who smoke to pay for state sponsored health programs is stupid, claiming you're "reducing taxes" and at the same time raising "fees" (Perry's favorite thing to do) is stupid, since you're still paying the tax, just in another form.

        You will never know what it’s like to work on a farm until your hands are raw, just so people can have fresh marijuana. Jack Handey

        by skohayes on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 03:14:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You misunderstand me. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lyta

          If you read my comment post above labeled: "I'll try to answer all the points you bring up." Section: "14th Amendment", it should clarify.  You have it backwards; I am not arguing that they have to follow our laws because they are citizens, but rather they are not citizens because they didn't follow our laws.  Just read it, I don't want to repeat it, it took me a while to type it.

          •  So you're blaming the children (0+ / 0-)

            of illegal immigrants for being born here? How is that their fault?
            You're basically visiting the sins of the mother upon the child. Not the child's fault. The Constitution states if they're born here, they're citizens. If you have an issue with that, take it to the Supreme Court.

            You will never know what it’s like to work on a farm until your hands are raw, just so people can have fresh marijuana. Jack Handey

            by skohayes on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 03:46:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The 1st Amendment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pat bunny

        While you are correct in stating it says "the Congress shall make no law..." The Supreme Court on numerous occasions has interpreted this to mean that no government agency whether it be federal, state, local should infringe upon the religious right of another. And since the Constitution provides the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the Constitution, this means that while it literally does not say "separation of church and state" that is how it has been interpreted and that is how it must be enforced.

        Your views on the Constitution are reasonable and understandable.  However, without taking into account how the Supreme Court has interpreted these amendments you are not looking at how these amendments are enforced today.

        When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. - Jimi Hendrix

        by Herse182 on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 03:35:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are correct. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lyta

          You speak of the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendments Due Process clause.  You are correct in that the Supreme Court has historically used that clause to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to the states.  In the same manner, they could just as easily reverse precedent if the makeup of the court was made up of more conservative justices.  I will also concede that any one of the Supreme Court justices, past or present,  is about one million times more of a Constitutional Law expert than me.  My point is that I, and others like me think that a more literal interpretation of the Constitution is proper.  Instead of the SCOTUS deciding the "grey areas" of the Constitution, we should just, as a collection of states, amend the constitution using the process that is already in place.

          My 1st Amendment argument in my posts above were my weakest, and I don't really have much of an argument except to share my viewpoint on this one.

      •  Do I understand that you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes

        think each municipality has the right to determine the religion they want and instill it?

        I do not hate the 1st Amendment.  I assume you are referring to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  The key operating word in the quoted text is "CONGRESS".  It does not say "Texas", "Omaha", or "United School District 123"; it says "Congress".

             Why do you think the Congress isn't making law for all Americans?

        And she's good at appearing sane, I just want you to know. Winwood/Capaldi

        by tobendaro on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 04:35:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

          It should be up to each state...that is my viewpoint.

          •  So why bother having a Congress? (0+ / 0-)

            Your view of what the founders wanted is quite skewed and frankly, wrong.  There came a time in our history where the country had to decide to go with a bigger federal presence or allow each state to be a seperate country.  The Federal route won out and the country proceeded forward to become the most successful country in the world.  We solved many problems and allowed much progress by using our Constitution in the way the Founders wanted.  I underdstand your yearning for the "freedom" to have a mini talibanish state to ease your discomfort with the other but that does no make a strong and prosperous country.  I also get that you don't care.  The all important thing to you is to have things your own way.  Akin to a three year olds wishes.

            And she's good at appearing sane, I just want you to know. Winwood/Capaldi

            by tobendaro on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 07:05:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I never (0+ / 0-)

              read any of what you toben are charging in his posts.  Just a constitutional discussion from another pov.  he's done it well without name calling or attacks of any kind.  The proper replies should be in the same vein.  I disagree with him on states being allowed to put religion into government fed or state or lower, however that is also stated without a particular belief in either.  Simply that states are not allowed to make laws that supersede federal law.  Like Joe I believe we can learn much from this type of discourse.

              We won't always succeed, but we never succeed if we never try.

              by lyta on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 09:39:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  First of all (0+ / 0-)

                he has been completely insulting with his pov of finding an intelligent liberal.  After that statement I don't t hink he deserves the respect you want to give him.  Second of all his position that Congress is making law only for itself is so out of bounds and ridiculous that he has absolutely no credibility  It is like discussing something with a horse and expecting a reasonable discourse.  

                And she's good at appearing sane, I just want you to know. Winwood/Capaldi

                by tobendaro on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 10:01:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Since So Many Baggers Are On SS & Medicare.. (13+ / 0-)

    do they all plan to move into their children's basement after it's stopped.

    Will there be enough room down there....all those flags they drag around everywhere take up a lot of room.  

    •  Teabaggers have to be the biggest collection (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Spoc42

      of assholes and nitwits ever assembled in one spot.  Since they love their guns so much they can just shoot the overflow when too many sick relatives and children finally crowd into their basement.  

      In short, teabaggers are fruitcakes and stupid pinheads.

      An idea, to be suggestive, must come to the individual with the force of revelation. William James

      by agincour on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 02:17:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  None of (0+ / 0-)

      the current changes are supposedly affecting current SS & Medicare recipients.

      We won't always succeed, but we never succeed if we never try.

      by lyta on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 09:41:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How ironic... (8+ / 0-)

    just finished my daily cruise through RedState.  There's a front page diary right now entitled "We the People: A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy."  

    It lays out the nuts and bolts of how the tea party interprets the constitution, and it will give you the chills if you can stomach the read.  They are crazy as hell, crazier than most people realize.  It's important we understand what we're up against.

    A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality. ~ John Lennon

    by SteelerGrrl on Fri Sep 16, 2011 at 03:18:39 PM PDT

    •  Oh, great...thanks for ruining my day :-) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SteelerGrrl

      You're just so dead on, steelergrrl.  It's a shame that the only people that truly do see and understand the radical agenda the teaparty has are folks like us that make a habit of keeping up with such things.  

      I can't see them continuing what seems to be an inordinate amount of control over the republican party...the GOP and its leaders.  The GOP convention is next year where they set their platform.  I'm thinkin' there's gonna be a HUGE fued over some of the things this radical anti-constitutional entity will want in that platform.

      - If you don't like gay marriage, blame straight people. They're the ones who keep having gay babies.

      by r2did2 on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 03:15:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks, just wish (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        r2did2

        I were the bearer of better news!

        As for a huge feud -- I agree.  It's still early in the GOP primaries and I only see the rift between the establishment and tea party growing deeper.  It will be a very interesting election season.

        A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality. ~ John Lennon

        by SteelerGrrl on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 03:56:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They don't like the interpretation of (9+ / 0-)

    the Constitution or the Constitution itself?  Remind them of this...

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/...

    How To Amend the US Constitution
    Methods for Proposing and Ratifying Amendments to the Constitution

    Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

    To Propose Amendments

    Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or

    Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

    To Ratify Amendments

    Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

    Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

    The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend.

    Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.


    May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

    by msmacgyver on Fri Sep 16, 2011 at 03:33:23 PM PDT

  •  SCOTUS Rules Brussel Sprouts Unconstitutional (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101, happymisanthropy, skohayes

    Thank you, Chief Justice Bork !

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Fri Sep 16, 2011 at 04:18:40 PM PDT

  •  I see them using the Articles of Confederation (0+ / 0-)

    by accident

    FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Fri Sep 16, 2011 at 05:04:53 PM PDT

    •  You might, until you hear one explaining why (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      historys mysteries, skohayes

      they should not be subject to speeding tickets and fines when traveling our roadways.  For that they appeal to a fundamental right to travel in the Articles of Confederation.  Perhaps that was urgent to establish this, given that state representatives and their families needed to travel to a designated Constitutional Conference unmolested while crossing state borders, city boundaries, bridges, ferries, etc.  How we should link The Articles of Confederation and Constitution to current law would be quite a topic to consider.  Being a Constitutional expert with deep historical knowledge might help in working out how to apply such relationships.

      When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

      by antirove on Fri Sep 16, 2011 at 08:19:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  noun, verb, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes

    and totally dumb-founded!

    lol


    What is necessary to change a person is to change his awareness of himself.
    -- Maslow ...... my list.

    by jamess on Fri Sep 16, 2011 at 05:32:29 PM PDT

  •  Some of them on the right HATE the 17th (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries, PSzymeczek

    b/c it allowed the Senators to be elected, instead of being appointed.

    If we still appointed, instead of voted in our Senators, the Senate would look a whole lot different.

    Illinois: Instead of 1 D and 1 R, it would be 2 D, 0 R
    Missouri. Reverse of Illinois.

  •  One thing I wonder about (0+ / 0-)

    is that if this is true:

    It's a radical agenda, and just a glimpse into why the tea party continues to plummet in polling.

    then why is CNN catering so much to the tea party, and pushing their agenda so much.  Never hear too much about MoveOn on CNN.

  •  Some asked me the other day... (4+ / 0-)

    if I'd rather have Perry or Romney as the GOP nominee (for Obama to run against.)  I said that while Perry represents the polar opposite to what we on the left (and middle) believe should be the role of government, the merest possibility of a Perry Presidency frightens me to the degree that I'd start looking for a home in Canada.

    Seriously, with the tidal wave of money that will surely pour into the campaign of the GOP nominee (thanks, Citizens United!) we just can't take that risk.

    "What's next?" - President Josiah Bartlet, The West Wing

    by shaf on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 02:14:15 PM PDT

  •  Slight correction... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, Spoc42

    Noun, verb, 'unconstitutional,' racial epithet, exclamation point(s).

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 02:31:05 PM PDT

  •  Thats why I call them (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spoc42, lyta

    Teapublicans. At this point they are one and the same.

  •  I read an interesting column (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tobendaro

    by Ruth Marcus the other day, called "Recovering the Constitution from the conservatives".
    An excerpt:

    This bid to “rebut the constitutional fairy tales being peddled by the Tea Party,” as Douglas Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center put it, could not be more timely, with the dizzying rise of Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R).

    The constitutional conservative critique, as articulated by Perry, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and others, goes far beyond the familiar laments about activist judges. It is, at bottom, an argument against the 20th century — specifically against the notion that the Constitution envisions and empowers a muscular federal government able to ensure that its citizens have clean air, healthy food and safe workplaces.

    Farther down:

    The constitutional conservative vision is dramatically different. It sees a hobbled federal government limited to a few basic activities, such as national defense and immigration. The 10th Amendment, reserving to states the powers not granted to the federal government, would be put on steroids. The commerce clause, giving the federal government the authority to regulate commerce among the states, would be drastically diminished.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    Highly recommended to read the entire column.

    You will never know what it’s like to work on a farm until your hands are raw, just so people can have fresh marijuana. Jack Handey

    by skohayes on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 02:36:53 PM PDT

  •  I'd respect them more if they were consistent. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckeye74, Spoc42, lyta

    Don't abolish the Fairness Doctrine, abolish the entire FCC.  If Rush has an inalienable right to broadcast his message on 1200 kiloherz, then so do I.

    Politics is the art of changing what's possible.

    by happymisanthropy on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 02:38:54 PM PDT

  •  The Tea Bags politics/policies are right in line (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spoc42

    with most Repuglicans. All for the wealthy. Nothing to do with the poor. If wanting a smaller government means getting rid of lifelines, too bad.  Its every man for himself. If your poor, or "weak" tough luck. All they care about are themselves. It could be that most of them, hopefully will find themselves in lines looking for another job. Chris Matthews on "Hardball" yesterday had the results of a poll which now shows that 57% of people who have who have Congressional Representatives, are in favor of voting them out in the next election. There could be ALOT of Tea Baggers and Republicans looking for unemployment insurance, come next November. HELL NO I say!!!!

    •  Hypocrisy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tobendaro

      If they're against SS, medicare and other "handouts", then they have no right to expect anything when they lose their jobs.

      Otherwise, they expose themselves as the hypocrits they actually are.

      Not that the sheeple in the Tea/Republican Party will take any notice. Their world is so isolated from reality that reality should be suing for alimony.

      FOSI: Full Of Shit Information - Both my sister and I are trivia freaks...

      by Spoc42 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 06:22:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So does the T-party advocate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spoc42

    shifting these kinds of programs from the Federal Gov't to the States or just doing away with them entirely?

    Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people. Kin Hubbard

    by Mr Robert on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 02:45:23 PM PDT

  •  What will happen? (0+ / 0-)

    The teabaggers and the Republican party will have a fight on their hands the likes of which they never dreamed of.  

    I also thank the one who rearranged deck chairs on the Titanic so those on board ship could get a better view of the iceberg.

    by NyteByrd1954 on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 03:04:27 PM PDT

  •  The tea party won't win 2012 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tobendaro, lyta

    because they have the best ideas for governing the country; they will win because democrats have become so complacent that they don't work to get out the vote, they don't work to help those that have difficulty getting to the polls, they don't work to make sure that the tea party and the republicans do not win. If the republicans win the WH, you can rest assured that your life and your children's lives will much more miserable than you can imagine now, and you will have no one to blame but yourselves.

    To prevent the tea party from winning, you have to do more than complain among yourselves; you actually have to work to defeat these people; you have to raise your game.

  •  And neither can Democrats who negotiate with them (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tobendaro, Spoc42, lyta
    "Establishment" Republicans can't be let off the hook for their own extremism by applying the label "tea party" to other Republicans, when the only distinction between the two groups is that the tea party faction is willing to say the crazy stuff Republicans believe out loud.

    The tea party is a once in life time opportunity for the corporations to take it all.  

    Yes we can, but he won't.

    by dkmich on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 03:08:58 PM PDT

  •  I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tobendaro, Spoc42

    but I seem to remember something about promote and secure the general welfare of the citizens being in the Constitution.

    All the Departments these nuts want to do away with were found under that purpose.

    Reform and update them sure. Just as the Constitution has changed, parts of the Government should change. Doing away with Agencies that serve citizen is not the way to go.

  •  Mark Twain about baggers in his autobiography (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    myboo, Spoc42, lyta
    The loyal observance of Christian private morals has made this Nation what it is –a clean and upright people in its private domestic life, an honest and honorable people in its private commercial life; no alien nation can claim superiority over it in these regards, no critic, foreign or domestic, can challenge the validity of this truth. During 363 days in the year the American citizen is true to his Christian private morals, and keeps undefiled the Nation’s character at its best and highest; then in the other two days of the year he leaves his Christian private morals at home, and carries his Christian public morals to the tax office and the polls and does the best he can do to damage and undo his whole year’s faithful and righteous work.

    Tea Parties are for little girls with imaginary friends.

    by J Edward on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 03:30:20 PM PDT

  •  These are Anti-American values (0+ / 0-)
  •  if you are not scared you are not paying attention (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Levi the Oracle
  •  I'f I'm not shaking my head (0+ / 0-)

    in disbelief, I'm screaming at the video.

  •  The Tea Party wants to run the country... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spoc42

    ...based on a strict reading of the U.S. Constitution. But then, the problem arises when, once they learn what's actually in the Constitution, they become convinced that the Constitution is mostly unconstitutional socialism.

    It must be confusing for these poor teabaggers, when they find out that the document they pretend to value, undermines their deeply held conservative beliefs about what America should be.

  •  s'not the Tparty or repub party- it's the radio (0+ / 0-)

    the talk radio party (dittoheads/teabaggers and progressives and liberals and all democracy loving americans need to get that right very soon.

    Progressives will lose all major messaging battles until they picket the limbaugh/hannity megastations and boycott those stations' local sponsors.

    by certainot on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 09:40:50 PM PDT

  •  The republican party "tea party' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spoc42, lyta

    They just hate what America is really about. Just read the conservative here. Doesn't really believe in the separation of church and state. The conservative that posted here like other cons support a state religion. The fact is church is suppose to be out of state no matter the level of state. Our founding fathers Thomas Paine and Jefferson lived through state religion and horrific organized religion extremist.  

    The "tea party' is the republican base. It's un-American, bigoted, and racist. They like the KKK live in a fantasy. I mean the fact that both right wing groups wave the American flag and use a lot of American flags to represent or pretend that they are the real Americans.

    When in reality it's the opposite, the far right republicans are un-American.  The bigoted anti-marriage laws presented are by republicans. It's the 21st not 14th century, but the fascist would like it to be that again.  

  •  Tea party morons want to abolish the federal (0+ / 0-)

    government. Let's follow that to it's conclusion. What happens when you eliminate the federal government? Simple, you get 50 federal governments. That does not sound like the result they want. They will have to start over with 50 times the work. I find it more likely that the tea party will be eliminated and if they don't watch their p's and q's, they will be relegated to history's garbage dump.

    Just as prostitution is the world's oldest profession, religion is the world's oldest scam.

    by Agent420 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 10:36:27 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site