Liberals admit July 4th parades are right wing

[Storm]

Joe, are you ever going to answer me?

 

[tumbleweed41]

And I'm sure you're with Elana Kagen as she argued before the high court that the government would ban books that advocated for or against a candidate...

Speaking of which. Elana Kagen never argued that the government would ban books that advocate for or against a candidate.
What she did state, in the Citizens United case, was that if the government ever tried to apply the PAC requirement to books published by corporations, there would be a good basis for it to be challenged as unconstitutional. And that that if a corporation produced "a pamphlet" directly calling for the election or defeat of a federal candidate, it would have to pay for it with its PAC funds.

Hardly the stuff of book banning.

 

[Darkness]

Hi Darkness,

Tell that to Joe Lieberman, liberals seemed pretty keen on purity there while Republicans have yet to kick Ron Paul (opposition to Iraq war), Rudy Giuliani (pro-choice) or Mitt Romney (Obamacare in Mass) out of the Republican Party for their less 'pure' views.

Yes, and many democrats in the South are pro-life. The reason our political parties have such diversity of opinion is that American parties are unstructured. I can technically be a socialist and join the Republican party. I can be a libertarian and join the Democratic party. Try another example. Political parties are the worst one could probably come up with. Their whole existence is based around an ideology.

Hi Storm,

Oh, they can be, but it is extremely difficult with an ideology that has values contra to our Founding values. There's a reason Jefferson was so high on the French Revolution (at least at first).

You mean the values of Jefferson who believed that your religion (i.e. catholicism/christianity) was as silly as Greek mythology?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Isn't that why you guys find a right to privacy (in Griswold v Connecticut) in the 'penumbras and emanations' of the Constitution?

The Constitution is not about what "people" can and cannot do. It is about what the Government can and cannot do. Such as...

• The Government can't search or seize your property without due process and a warrant.
• The Government cannot keep you jailed indefinably without a trial.
• The Government can't enact laws abridging the freedom of speech or religion.

The case you mention (Griswald v Connecticut), in which the state of Connecticut's law against the use of contraceptives was challenged, was found to be a violation of the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution.
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
In other words, the Court found the Connecticut law to be overreaching in denying and disparaging the rights of it's citizens to use contraceptives.
Other Courts in other cases have also invoked the 9th Amendment to protect the actions of citizens within the confines of privacy. Keeping the Government from regulating the private lives of it's citizens.
The Government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.

Isn't that why you guys seek to ban guns in violation of the Second Amendment?

Not an outright ban. However, since "a well regulated Militia" refers to a citizen 'Army" that was required by many state laws to always keep a "musket in good repair" ready, rather than our current standing Army (an idea abhored by the Founding Fathers), I have no problem with the regulation and restriction of certain types of weapons, and denying those who have abused the right to be denied ownership.
I myself own a 12-gauge shotgun and a bolt action .260

Isn't that why you guys do things like Waco (liberal Janet Reno) and massacre Americans?

Wonder why you didn't mention Ruby Ridge in '92. When George Bush was President.
But besides your gross generalizations, can you provide documentation of "liberals" who seek out and "massacre Americans"?

Isn't that why you guys wanted SCOFLA to violate the law in Florida in 2000?

The Supreme Court in Florida did violate the law when Gore's lawyers asked them to ignore current election law.
But again, your "you guys" statement is a gross generalization.
I did not want Bush to win. But I would never advocate what the Supreme Court of Florida, or Gore's lawyers, did.

 

[Darkness]

tumbleweed41, as I never tire or reminding people, the second amendment originally only applied to the federal government, not the states. Thus, a state like Illinois would have been constitutionally able to ban firearms, before the judicial activism of the Supreme Court. Yet, I guess it is only judicial activism if it is done in favour of a progressive issue.