Conservative vs Liberal

[JonC]

Poor choice of words, but his appeal to the original intent makes it obvious he's not for "terminating" the US Constitution.

His point, obvious to any critical thinker, is that fraud invalidates any act poisoned by it, even those ostensibly in observance of the Constitution. I've argued that from the beginning. Fraud is an attack on the Constitution itself.

As I thought, this is like the assertion that Trump said neo nazis were fine fine people, and that he recommended drinking disinfectant.

I disagree. His appeal was not to the original intent of the US Constitution but to the founding fathers on election fraud.

Election fraud was always an issue. But we do not see anybody calling to terminate portions of the US Constitution to remedy the issue until Trump.

It wasn't poor wording. There isn't other ways of saying what Trump said.

What you are suggesting is that Trump really did not mean what he said - something you cannot know. AND you are criticizing others for pointing out what Trump said was wrong.

 

[JonC]

But, back to the topic.
You're reframing and misrepresenting your opponents' arguments and adopting lib-speak to slander them.

Here's the docket. https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...2243533_20221027-152110-95757954-00007015.pdf

I read the docket before I posted. They are in effect trying to hold Congress accountable for something the US Constitution does not place under their control.

The Federal Government is too big already. If we continue to chip away at the State then why bother having states at all? Just give everything to the federal government and get it over with.

 

[JonC]

B I N G O ! ! !

Perhaps the nation would be better off if people were willing to criticize politicians within a platform they agree with rather than focusing on the Democrats.

@Revmitchell says that Trump was just saying that election fraud allows for the termination of parts of the US Constitution.

If we are unwilling to criticize that idea then we are just blindly following a political camp....i.e. "sheeple".

 

[Aaron]

I disagree. His appeal was not to the original intent of the US Constitution but to the founding fathers on election fraud.

Election fraud was always an issue. But we do not see anybody calling to terminate portions of the US Constitution to remedy the issue until Trump.

It wasn't poor wording. There isn't other ways of saying what Trump said.

What you are suggesting is that Trump really did not mean what he said - something you cannot know. AND you are criticizing others for pointing out what Trump said was wrong.

When he mentioned the founders, he was appealing to original intent.

 

[JonC]

When he mentioned the founders, he was appealing to original intent.

If so, he would not have said that massive fraud allows for the termination of parts of the US Constitution to install a new President midterm or hold a new election.

Given his comments, Trump is the last person to mention the intent of the founding fathers.

Trump, his supporters, and Democrats are anti-American, anti-patriot progressives.

No amount of spin will change that fact.

We can only hope the GOP will recover, distance themselves from Trump and the alt-right, and return to American values to include protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Aaron]

I read the docket before I posted. They are in effect trying to hold Congress accountable for something the US Constitution does not place under their control.

Actually, they make some very lucid arguments to the contrary.

I find it illuminating that you interpret their petition to hold public officials accountable for their malfeasance as support for Trump.

The Federal Government is too big already. If we continue to chip away at the State then why bother having states at all? Just give everything to the federal government and get it over with.

The federal government is there to preside over disputes between parties and the states.

States don't get to perpetrate fraud

 

[JonC]

Actually, they make some very lucid arguments to the contrary.

I find it illuminating that you interpret their petition to hold public officials accountable for their malfeasance as support for Trump.



The federal government is there to preside over disputes between parties and the states.

States don't get to perpetrate fraud

You misunderstood.

I think citizens should hold public officials accountable.

But elections held within a State is NOT disputes between States. It is an issue for States to handle.

Georgia, for example, handled it by recounting votes (Trump did not win that State) and they moved towards stricter voting laws.

Georgians who did not want Biden to win the State object not to fraud but the fact that after an investigation Trump had lost.

Georgia simply has too many liberals in its cities.

Other States are like that. They are responsible for their own elections. The Federal Government us responsible for counting electoral certificates sent by the States.

The solution is NOT to join the Dems in taking a progressive stance towards the US Constitution.

The OP really doesn't matter anyway. It's just an alt-right ploy. It will go nowhere, probably still be traveling to the dung pike of stupid ideas long after the 2024 election has passed.

 

[Aaron]

You misunderstood.

I think citizens should hold public officials accountable.

But elections held within a State is NOT disputes between States. It is an issue for States to handle.

Had the petitioners' state courts not dismissed his case, he would not be petitioning the Supreme Court. His dispute is with his state officials, who acted as enemies of the Constitution, and with those that adhered to them and aided them, namely the federal officials named as respondents.

The case has merit. The SCOTUS won't take it, because of fear, not because it's not Constitutional. If they do take it, it will be to deny it, again because of fear.

 

[Aaron]

If so, he would not have said that massive fraud allows for the termination of parts of the US Constitution to install a new President midterm or hold a new election.

Given his comments, Trump is the last person to mention the intent of the founding fathers.

Trump, his supporters, and Democrats are anti-American, anti-patriot progressives.

No amount of spin will change that fact.

We can only hope the GOP will recover, distance themselves from Trump and the alt-right, and return to American values to include protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.

No one but you is spinning anything. An interesting point was raised in the petition:

d) “Our courts have consistently held that fraud vitiates whatever it touches, Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492 (1870)”. Estate of Stonecipher v. Estate of Butts, 591 SW 2d 806. And “"It is a stern but just maxim of law that fraud vitiates everything into which it enters." Veterans Service Club v. Sweeney. 252 S.W.2d 25. 27 (Kv.1952).” Radioshack Cory, v. ComSmart, Inc., 222 SW 3d 256.

Vitiate; “To impair or make void; to destroy or annul, either completely or partially, the force and effect of an act or instrument.” edition 2. West's Encyclopedia of American Law,
​

Trump's statement sounds just like a non-lawyerly paraphrase of that maxim.

 

[Aaron]

But back to the topic.

I disagree.

God does not give man the right to life. Men live by the grace of God, not a human right.

God does not give man the right to liberty. Men are freed only by the grace of God.

God does not give men the right to pursue their happiness. Men exist to glorify God.

You make everything about man, nothing about God.

The following sounds much like the arguments you're making here and elsewhere:

Above all, we note the fact that the so-called rights of man...are nothing but the rights...of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community.

On The Jewish Question by Karl Marx​

 

[37818]

How the Reformation Shaped Your World | PragerU

The real cause was the New Testament.

 

[Wingman68]

 

[JonC]

Had the petitioners' state courts not dismissed his case, he would not be petitioning the Supreme Court. His dispute is with his state officials, who acted as enemies of the Constitution, and with those that adhered to them and aided them, namely the federal officials named as respondents.

The case has merit. The SCOTUS won't take it, because of fear, not because it's not Constitutional. If they do take it, it will be to deny it, again because of fear.

Sure, if the guys have just named those in the State government, it would not be unconstitutional.

But looking at the OP link it appears they are saying that Congress had a duty to intervene.

The SCOTUS probably won't take it because it is frivolous.

 

[JonC]

No one but you is spinning anything. An interesting point was raised in the petition:

d) “Our courts have consistently held that fraud vitiates whatever it touches, Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492 (1870)”. Estate of Stonecipher v. Estate of Butts, 591 SW 2d 806. And “"It is a stern but just maxim of law that fraud vitiates everything into which it enters." Veterans Service Club v. Sweeney. 252 S.W.2d 25. 27 (Kv.1952).” Radioshack Cory, v. ComSmart, Inc., 222 SW 3d 256.

Vitiate; “To impair or make void; to destroy or annul, either completely or partially, the force and effect of an act or instrument.” edition 2. West's Encyclopedia of American Law,
​

Trump's statement sounds just like a non-lawyerly paraphrase of that maxim.

No.

You (and @Wingman68 ) are among the few here that would agree that massive fraud allows for the termination of parts of the US Constitution.

The reason is you are, per Revmitchell 's definition, progressive activists (or per normal definition, alt-right).

Both of you are anti-patriot. I served to protect and defend the US Constitution against enemies - foreign and domestic. That would include you and @Wingman68 .

There are no acts of fraud massive enough to allow for the termination of the US Constitution. Period.

 

[JonC]

But back to the topic.



The following sounds much like the arguments you're making here and elsewhere:

Above all, we note the fact that the so-called rights of man...are nothing but the rights...of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community.

On The Jewish Question by Karl Marx​

No. That is a rather silly claim.

I am saying that men do not, under normal circumstances, have the right to take a man's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.

One major purpose of our government is to protect that idea.

BUT man does not have the right to his own life, to his own liberty, or his own freedom. Those belong to a Sovereign God.

You (and @Wingman68 ) are elevating man. Man lives only by God's grace. Man experiences only the freedoms God graces man to experience. And man exists for God's pleasure, not his own happiness.

 

[Jec81]

As a History major, historian, and history professor I will learn to it says what it means and means what it says. Just like my argument for a conservative understanding of the Word of God.

 

[JonC]

As a History major, historian, and history professor I will learn to it says what it means and means what it says. Just like my argument for a conservative understanding of the Word of God.

I agree.

 

[Aaron]

No.

You (and @Wingman68 ) are among the few here that would agree that massive fraud allows for the termination of parts of the US Constitution.

The reason is you are, per Revmitchell 's definition, progressive activists (or per normal definition, alt-right).

Both of you are anti-patriot. I served to protect and defend the US Constitution against enemies - foreign and domestic. That would include you and @Wingman68 .

There are no acts of fraud massive enough to allow for the termination of the US Constitution. Period.

LOL. You're still asserting your hitherto soundly spanked reconstitution of Trump's, and now our words.

You're now resorting to labeling and name-calling and an appeal to virtue.

That means you're on the defensive and find our arguments valid.

 

[JonC]

LOL. You're still asserting your hitherto soundly spanked reconstitution of Trump's, and now our words.

You're now resorting to labeling and name-calling and an appeal to virtue.

That means you're on the defensive and find our arguments valid.

No. I am saying that the leftists, the DNC, the alt-right and far-right are trying to nullify the US Constitution.

We saw this online with anti-American idiots who could not understand how Biden is constitutionally the POTUS.

 

[Aaron]

No. That is a rather silly claim.

It's not silly at all.

Your assertions are wholly Marxist.

You deny the existence of individual rights, so did Marx. You assert that the notion of individual rights stems from a sense of entitlement. So did Marx.

But unlike Marx, you can't recognize (or at least you won't admit to recognizing) that the notion of individual rights is deeply rooted in religion.

You (and @Wingman68 ) are elevating man.

Now you appeal to a false humility. Is it not written in the Bible you claim to honor, "I said, ye are gods,"?

Man lives only by God's grace. Man experiences only the freedoms God graces man to experience.

That's right. God has endowed man with rights by His grace.

And man exists for God's pleasure, not his own happiness.

Are you saying here that God has no interest in the happiness of His creation?