If the Right can't live with the Constitution, aren't they unAmerican?

[ElementaryPenguin]

Clearly the Right disapproves of the Constitution, and refuses to abide by it. Is there a clearer sign of a true "unAmerican" sentiment? Seems to me, most Freeps really seem to hate our Constitution, and resent having to adhere to it. Perhaps they view it as some radical document drawn up by that famous group of left-wing liberals - most commonly refered to as the Founding Fathers!! To these folks, being an American seems to mean liking apple pie, waving or mounting little Chinese-made U.S. flags, and "supporting our troops" whenever we're about to pulverize some backward 3rd world country. But first and foremost, isn't accepting and abiding by the U.S. Constitution, what BEING AN AMERICAN is really all about??

How about yet another bumber sticker idea:

America - abide by its Constitution - or leave it!


Perhaps what we Democrats could use is a name change. Now that we've appropriately renamed the Repukes as the Cheap Labor Party, perhaps we should be known as the Constitutionalists!!!

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. Love our new name!!!!!!!!

We really should use it, gang!

[ElementaryPenguin]

2. Glad to hear you think so! Thanks.

eom

[maine_raptor]

3. It's not that they don't like the Constitution.......

it's that they prefer the Articles of Confederation.

[BeatleBoot]

4. Exactly

They prefer states rights to a strong central government.

Bush is a fink!

[Syrinx]

7. "They prefer states rights to a strong central government."

You are joking, right?

[ElementaryPenguin]

12. BushCo HAS changed that dynamic pretty damn dramatically, haven't they?

Small federal government! NOT!!!! Instead, they've given us BIG BROTHER deluxe!!

[BeatleBoot]

15. Right

joking. should have inserted a <sarcasm>

[Brian Sweat]

9. States Rights is a canard.

Anytime a state tries to do something they don't like, they want to Federal Government to step in.

[ElementaryPenguin]

17. Like when BushCo appealed to the Supreme Court to decide that

States were not capable of counting their own votes - and therefore for selecting their own electors to the electoral college!!! What a fucking smoke screen their double standard "sacred states' rights" position is!! :puke:

[ElementaryPenguin]

8. Soooo true, MR! LOL!!!!

eom

[BeatleBoot]

5. Elementary Penguin

I just wanted to let you know that you inspired my "BeatleBoot" name way back when I was just lurking.

I almost made it "singingharekrishna", but opted for BB

Rock on'

[ElementaryPenguin]

6. Hey! I'm very proud to hear it!! KOOKOOKOOCHOO at you, comrade!

Beatles Rule!!

[BeatleBoot]

11. No doubt

Wish Lennon were here to lead us on our way.

May your god(s) bless you.

[ElementaryPenguin]

16. I can't "imagine" Lennon not speaking out/taking on ChimpCo!!

Man, would they have hated him and his truth seeking, question raising, uncompromising BIG MOUTH!!!

[WoodrowFan]

10. Blind Worship

They're like the people in that really bad TOS (Trek Old Series) who worshiped the Constitution but didn't know what it said..

[ElementaryPenguin]

13. Or the "Christian" Fundamentalists who practic the very anti-thesis of

Jesus's teachings!

:puke:

[Lexingtonian]

14. They want the Confederate Constitution back

And their Alexander Hamilton Stephens is already on the Supreme Court- his present incarnation is as Antonin Scalia.

[meow2u3]

18. How about a couple more bumper sticker captions?

Real patriots abide by the Constitution!


You can't be a patriot and a sweatshop conservative at the same time!

[ElementaryPenguin]

19. I love both of those!!!

eom

[Character Assassin]

20. So, can you show me who on the left resepects it and how?

[ElementaryPenguin]

24. Well, for starters, judging from the sentiments expressed here

I would say most folks on the DU do - which, of course, in today's political climate, makes extremist, radical left-wingers out of us!!! Imaging the nerver - suggesting that we adhere to the principals of the Constitution!! As far as the national scene - all throw your question back at you. Exactly which high profile Democrat seems to you to be refusing to abide by the Constitution? I'll bet it isn't Sen. Robert Byrd, for a great example. Or Dennis Kucinich. Show me a Democrat who rivals Tom Delay as far as a blatant disregard for the rule of the law, and the U.S. Constitution in general? Surely, you're not on the DU message board, with over 1000 posts, to defend the despicable practices of the Cheap Labor Party, are you??!!

[Character Assassin]

32. That's not an answer, that's a question.

As far as the national scene - all throw your question back at you.
Exactly which high profile Democrat seems to you to be refusing to abide by the Constitution? I'll bet it isn't Sen. Robert Byrd, for a great example. Or Dennis Kucinich. Show me a Democrat who rivals Tom Delay as far as a blatant disregard for the rule of the law, and the U.S. Constitution in general? Surely, you're not on the DU message board, with over 1000 posts, to defend the despicable practices of the Cheap Labor Party, are you??!!

I asked you becauase I thought you might have a substanative answer. Was I wrong? I know who I think, on the Democratic side, holds the Constitution as little better than a cosmetic prop or gimmick, to be hauled out at press conferences, and there are plenty, but I asked you, as you made the original contention about rightists.

So, then, who are they? A good place to start would be to check Democrats' records on the war on drugs.

[StopThief]

21. I can't wait to use this!!!!

Could you please refer me to what clause or amendment in the Constitution the Right disapproves of and refuses to abide by? I think this would be extremely helpful in making the point.

[ElementaryPenguin]

22. Sheesh. I think breaking it down could prove difficult. They don't

seem to care for much of it. Perhaps someone's got something already documenting this. If not - it would make for an interesting project - and very useful as evidence.

[StopThief]

23. I'm sure you can think of just one. . .

that I can use. I mean you made the statement that their attitude was clear. Surely you had something in mind.

[ElementaryPenguin]

25. The concept of the Separation of Church and State seems to be

One they have quite a difficult time accepting, wouldn't YOU agree??

[StopThief]

26. I might, but that won't help in an argument.

You see, they have this crazy argument that the Constitution says "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion". They won't seem to budge off that argument. Ya got anything else?

[ElementaryPenguin]

27. No, it isn't a "crazy" argument. It sort of means that I don't have to

Pay for YOUR Buddhist education! Put another way, MY taxes should not be used to finance the spreading of YOUR Buddhist belief, whether it is in the form of using public funds to build a shrine honoring Buddhism, or, say, mounting a plaque which glorifies Buddhist principles. And YOU are wrong on another count (or rather "your friends" are wrong)! Our Constitution does grant you BOTH the freedom to choose and practice the religion of your choice, and the freedom to have no religion at all, i.e. - freedom FROM religion!!

[stoner_guy]

28. What the constitution actually says

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

It would not appear from the text that there is a "wall of separation" between church and state. It does appear that congress is restricted from having any say in the matter of religion. It can't establish one and it can't prohibit any. One might reaonably conclude that this restriction extends to the Federal goverment as a whole. A reasonable person might indeed conclude that this places restrictions on the ability of any Federal agency to prohibit any expression of religion, including those that might be funded out of state or local treasuries. Others indeed read it to prohibit any contamination of government by religion. The view that govt. must remain pure, could be seen as elevating govt. to the level of a religion. This latter point could be a thread of its own.

It is interesting that those groups that tend to see the rather specific prohibition in the first Ammendment as prohibiting any acknowlegement of religion by any level of govt. also tend to see the global prohibition of the second Ammendment as only protecting the right of the govt. to arm itself.

And you might as well forget 9 and 10. Both major parties trample over those like they weren't even there. The last time anyone got anywhere with 9 was Roe v. Wade. Ten has been trampled so badly by the "War on X" (where X usually is drugs) that it is just a grease spot on the road to totalitarian hell.

[ElementaryPenguin]

30. I can assure you that the founding fathers DID intend for their to be

A separation of church and state!!! It is a concept you find repeatedly in their writings!! Many of the founders were agnostics!!

[StopThief]

31. The Conservative response on education would be. . .

that if the government sets a list of neutral standards that they will use to decide which schools recieve public money, and a school that has a religious focus satisfies all of these standards, then the state has no right to deny that school the funds. Using neutral criteria negates the argument that the government is thus "establishing" a religion, because religion has played no part in the decisionmaking process.

This is the argument that I heard in my "Current Constitutional Issues" class a couple of years ago.

[proud patriot]

29. Do It Yourself Here for free

http://www.thebumperbanner.com/diy.php Just follow the instructions on the page .

[Yupster]

33. It's funny that the two sides pretty much mirror each other

because you can hear the right wingers arguing that their problem with the left is that they don't think the left believes in the Constitution.

I think the real fight is between whether the Constitution should be read to mean what it says, or should it be a "living" document that can be stretched to include things that it clearly never was intended to include.

To me that's the real left/right fight over the Constitution.