Blurryeyed wrote:
Did you read the link?
I've been reading about the administrative state since the 1960's. Some like you and Bannon think that SCOTUS has been properly poised with Heritage selected judges to make the move now to dismantle everything from the FDR era forward. It's the ultimate chaos of the trump camp.
It doesn't have the steam you think it has.
Triple G wrote:
I've been reading about the administrative state since the 1960's. Some like you and Bannon think that SCOTUS has been properly poised with Heritage selected judges to make the move now to dismantle everything from the FDR era forward. It's the ultimate chaos of the trump camp.
It doesn't have the steam you think it has.
I guess the difference is that you believe in restricting a president's agenda should the 4th branch of government disagree with it and having the majority of our regulation which are effectively laws written and administered by a branch of government insulated from the accountability of the governed. The administrative state effectively writes law, adjudicates law, and sanctions penalty against those who are found to t***sgressed their laws.
“The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” - Thomas Jefferson.
Blurryeyed wrote:
I guess the difference is that you believe in restricting a president's agenda should the 4th branch of government disagree with it and having the majority of our regulation which are effectively laws written and administered by a branch of government insulated from the accountability of the governed. The administrative state effectively writes law, adjudicates law, and sanctions penalty against those who are found to t***sgressed their laws.
“The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” - Thomas Jefferson.
I guess the difference is that you believe in rest... (
show quote)
You know nothing as usual.
Triple G wrote:
You know nothing as usual.
That is a pretty ignorant thing for you to say. A progressive government that weakens the constitutional separation of powers and the self-governance features of our government behind, or a constitutional government ruled by law and not the whims of an unelected bureaucracy.
You are just an ass that can't accept a difference of opinion.
Blurryeyed wrote:
That is a pretty ignorant thing for you to say. A progressive government that weakens the constitutional separation of powers and the self-governance features of our government behind, or a constitutional government ruled by law and not the whims of an unelected bureaucracy.
You are just an ass that can't accept a difference of opinion.
You're the arrogant ass who professes to know what I believe and then decided he can go ahead and speak for me.
Triple G wrote:
You're the arrogant ass who professes to know what I believe and then go ahead and speak for me.
Try looking in the mirror AH!
[quote=Blurryeyed]Try looking in the mirror AH![/quote
All anyone needs to do is read your comments to see that you are the one who is bent out of shape because I provided some alternatives to your posting.
[quote=Triple G][quote=Blurryeyed]Try looking in the mirror AH![/quote
All anyone needs to do is read your comments to see that you are the one who is bent out of shape because I provided some alternatives to your posting.[/quote]
I read your alternatives and they showed me nothing other than the liberal mindset regarding US governance. You folks see an evolving constitution, decades ago you abandoned the idea of using a constitutional amendment to change the constitution and relied on the court to add meaning to the constitution that was never intended. Now that there finally is a true conservative majority on the court your politicians went nuts, they wanted to stack the court by adding several new justices under a liberal president.
If you don't understand the POV used to write the articles that you linked then you are even further left than I thought you are. Biden will use the 4th branch of government to tell us what cars we can drive, what stoves we can have, to choke farmers up until the point that they lose their farms.... It was never intended and certainly is not addressed in our constitution, ours was to be a government that would do no to little harm, certainly has not turned out that way in the minds of many. You don't have to agree with me but you don't have to disrespect me for having a POV different than yours.
BTW, when I said that was a pretty ignorant thing for you to say I was referencing your comment that I know nothing, I know every bit as much as you do regarding our country's constitution and its erosion.
[quote=Triple G][quote=Blurryeyed]Try looking in the mirror AH![/quote
All anyone needs to do is read your comments to see that you are the one who is bent out of shape because I provided some alternatives to your posting.[/quote]
Not at all, I did not slight you until you called me a know nothing, I suggest that it was you who turned the conversation south... Read the thread.
Blurryeyed wrote:
I read your alternatives and they showed me nothing other than the liberal mindset regarding US governance. You folks see an evolving constitution, decades ago you abandoned the idea of using a constitutional amendment to change the constitution and relied on the court to add meaning to the constitution that was never intended. Now that there finally is a true conservative majority on the court your politicians went nuts, they wanted to stack the court by adding several new justices under a liberal president.
If you don't understand the POV used to write the articles that you linked then you are even further left than I thought you are. Biden will use the 4th branch of government to tell us what cars we can drive, what stoves we can have, to choke farmers up until the point that they lose their farms.... It was never intended and certainly is not addressed in our constitution, ours was to be a government that would do no to little harm, certainly has not turned out that way in the minds of many. You don't have to agree with me but you don't have to disrespect me for having a POV different than yours.
BTW, when I said that was a pretty ignorant thing for you to say I was referencing your comment that I know nothing, I know every bit as much as you do regarding our country's constitution and its erosion.
I read your alternatives and they showed me nothin... (
show quote)
The "you know nothing" was in response to and attached to your post professing to know what I believe - you don't.
Blurryeyed wrote:
I read your alternatives and they showed me nothing other than the liberal mindset regarding US governance. You folks see an evolving constitution, decades ago you abandoned the idea of using a constitutional amendment to change the constitution and relied on the court to add meaning to the constitution that was never intended. Now that there finally is a true conservative majority on the court your politicians went nuts, they wanted to stack the court by adding several new justices under a liberal president.
If you don't understand the POV used to write the articles that you linked then you are even further left than I thought you are. Biden will use the 4th branch of government to tell us what cars we can drive, what stoves we can have, to choke farmers up until the point that they lose their farms.... It was never intended and certainly is not addressed in our constitution, ours was to be a government that would do no to little harm, certainly has not turned out that way in the minds of many. You don't have to agree with me but you don't have to disrespect me for having a POV different than yours.
BTW, when I said that was a pretty ignorant thing for you to say I was referencing your comment that I know nothing, I know every bit as much as you do regarding our country's constitution and its erosion.
I read your alternatives and they showed me nothin... (
show quote)
It's obvious you didn't read the links which are POVs from history and Constitutional law. They are all balanced reporting.
Like I said; watch the SCOTUS FDA case.
The POV you posted is Full on Heritage propaganda--hardly unbiased. Hypocrite much.
https://tomklingenstein.com/about/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/04/far-right-republican-donor-woke-thomas-klingensteinhttps://americanmind.org/audio/r-j-pestritto-on-progressivism-liberalism-and-the-administrative-state/https://www.thebulwark.com/what-the-hell-happened-to-the-claremont-institute/
Triple G wrote:
It's obvious you didn't read the links which are P... (
show quote)
I did read a couple of your links and it comes down to the progressive attitude that the constitution is outdated and should not constrain our modern government, that the government should not be restricted in making progress for the common good, it should evolve, through the court system and agency. Verses the conservative POV that individual freedoms must be protected from the government ruled by elites and through limiting the government's mission and through a system of checks and balances government will better serve the people of this country. The progressive view in my opinion discounts human nature and the corruption of those who wield power.
What has made this country the greatest country on the face of the earth is the fact that our constitution placed individual freedoms at the forefront of our constitution and protected those rights not only through the Bill of Rights, but also in the construct of our government that modern day liberalism would tear down.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.