Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 17, 2019

On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time to sign the document they had created. We encourage all Americans to observe this important day in our nation's history by attending local events in your area. Celebrate Constitution Day through activities, learning, parades and demonstrations of our Love for the United State of America and the Blessings of Freedom Our Founding Fathers secured for us.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

F--- the Constitution.

--the Left

#1 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 09:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#1 It is a shame I can only give that post 1 NW flag.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 09:29 AM | Reply

"F--- the Constitution."

Conservatives on the SC who recognized corporate personhood. Want to try and argue that the founders would agree with them? Money is free speech? Yeah, I'm sure the authors of the Constitution would agree with that too. Riiight!!!

#3 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-17 09:34 AM | Reply

Oh, and gerrymandering, I'm sure they would also agree with that. And voter suppression. Virtually everything the Republican Party does to cling to power. The authors of the Constitution are spinning in their graves today.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-17 09:35 AM | Reply

Danni, keep in mind it was a democratic president who had the most Supreme Court against him in history. So yes, Nulli is right in post 1.

"Obama Has the Worst Supreme Court Record in History"

www.realclearpolitics.com

And he was supposed to be a Consitutional scholar? LOL

#5 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 09:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And right off the bat, the Left deflects. They can't appreciate the Constitution, one of the greatest political documents ever written, the towering achievement of classical liberalism.

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 09:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#5 Obama was an authoritarian who spied on news reporters.

The left has despised the Constitution's limitations on their power grabs dating back to at least as far as Woodrow Wilson.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 09:40 AM | Reply

As Jeff said about #1, I say about #6: Not enough NW flags can be given.

#8 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 09:45 AM | Reply

"They can't appreciate the Constitution, one of the greatest political documents ever written, the towering achievement of classical liberalism."

Actually, it is the left that does respect and honor the Constitution and we do get upset when Republicans pretend it says things it doesn't say and that were completely never intended by the authors of it.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-17 09:48 AM | Reply

"The left has despised the Constitution's limitations on their power grabs dating back to at least as far as Woodrow Wilson."

You speak of power grabs in the age of Trump??? Hilarious!

#10 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-17 09:49 AM | Reply

You speak of power grabs in the age of Trump??? Hilarious!

#10 | POSTED BY DANNI

Trump has actually been more constrained than Obama or Bush.

Actually, it is the left that does respect and honor the Constitution and we do get upset when Republicans pretend it says things it doesn't say and that were completely never intended by the authors of it.

#9 | POSTED BY DANNI

That is absolutely risible. I'd give you a FF but I know you were being serious and actually believe that.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 09:51 AM | Reply

"Actually, it is the left that does respect and honor the Constitution..."

What is the party of the president who was shot down the most in the Supreme Court, Danni? Hint: He claimed to be a Constitutional scholar.

#12 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 09:52 AM | Reply

I wonder if the NYT will post anything about the Constitution today?

Well considering that outlet believes the founding day of this country was 1619, (the day that the first slaves arrived) I'm guessing not.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 09:52 AM | Reply

"Professor Or Not, Obama Repeatedly Flunks Constitution Law Tests"

www.forbes.com

#14 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 09:54 AM | Reply

On this day, pledge yourself to reading the Federalist papers and Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

#15 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 09:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"What is the party of the president who was shot down the most in the Supreme Court, Danni?"

I've said plenty of times here that the SC is a political weapon of the Republican Party and has been for many years. So getting struck down or the other side winning a case is not proof at all about which party operates within the actual Constitution the most.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-17 09:59 AM | Reply

#16 How do you explain the 13 9-0 rulings against Obama, Danni?

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 10:01 AM | Reply

#15 Sound advice. I may just have to read me some Federalist papers this evening.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 10:01 AM | Reply

Did you read this which was posted here the other day?

"Justice Sotomayor warns the Supreme Court is doing "extraordinary" favors for Trump"

www.vox.com

#19 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-17 10:03 AM | Reply

--I wonder if the NYT will post anything about the Constitution today?

They'll just piss on it, like they did with anniversary of the Apollo moon landing. All they wanted to talk about was how allegedly "inclusive" the Soviet space program was.

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 10:05 AM | Reply

My favorite book on the writing of the Constitution is "Miracle at Philadelphia" by Catherine Drinker Bowen. It is a great read detailing the politics and the compromises it took to write the Constitution. It even inserts little details like meals that were brought in and the sweltering summer where some of the CC delegates actually removed the ruffles in their shirts!.

There was a lot of quarlling going on, a lot of politics, and a lot of alliances formed to get the document everyone wanted, but not everyone agreed on.

It really tells the story of an amazing, and historically accurate drama that was being played out during the Constituional Convention.

#21 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 10:09 AM | Reply

Why Nulli? Are you a subscriber?

#22 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-17 10:09 AM | Reply

"Justice Sotomayor...

You mean, the woman who said this:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Had Scalia said that but with the sex and skin color reversed the left would have lost its mind and it would be brought up any time his name was mentioned.

If it weren't for double standards the left wouldn't have any standards at all.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 10:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#21 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

I have a similar book (can't think of the name off top of my head) but it's over 500 pages (I've only read about half) and it goes into excruciating detail regarding all of the machinations surrounding its ratification.

It was amazing, really. The states, for the most part, didn't want it because they didn't were wary of centralized power but they recognized that the Articles of Confederation simply weren't working and that existing as nation-states was untenable.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 10:17 AM | Reply

the Left deflects. They can't appreciate the Constitution

Which side of the political spectrum has been quietly but aggressively gathering state legislative support (currently at 27 states, iirc) to hold a convention to rewrite the Constitution?

Hint: it's not "the Left." ------.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-17 10:25 AM | Reply

Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 09:40 AM | Reply | Flagged newsworthy by goatman, funny by JOE

Thanks for the sarcastic funny flag, Josef. Josef is one of these sniveling Stalinists who would shred the checks and balances in the Constitution to centralize all power in a Kremlin-by-the-Beltway.

#26 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 10:30 AM | Reply

Which side of the political spectrum has been quietly but aggressively gathering state legislative support (currently at 27 states, iirc) to hold a convention to rewrite the Constitution?
Hint: it's not "the Left." ------.

#25 | POSTED BY JOE

The Constitution lays out the procedure to be rewritten, Joe.

There's a reason why it has so many amendments. It's a document that is designed to be changed only so long as it has an overwhelming majority of consent to be changed. That is a far cry from the malleable "living and breathing" document the Left paints it as in order to work around its constraints.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 10:33 AM | Reply

The Constitution lays out the procedure to be rewritten, Joe.

I know. But just because you follow the procedure to rewrite it does not translate into respect for what you call a great political document. A constitutional convention in today's era of bottomless pocketed-lobbyists would be a disaster for the Constitution as we know it, and only a hack would deny that.

I personally don't hold up the Constitution as some sacrosanct document that should never be disturbed. But i also hold no illusions hat a Convention would make it any better.

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-17 10:36 AM | Reply

But just because you follow the procedure to rewrite it does not translate into respect for what you call a great political document.

Except that I regard it as a great political document and don't want to see it rewritten.

A constitutional convention in today's era of bottomless pocketed-lobbyists would be a disaster for the Constitution as we know it, and only a hack would deny that.

The thing is the degree of consensus necessary to change it is so high that a convention will never take place. 3/4 of the states. That is a bar too high.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 10:44 AM | Reply

Except that I regard it as a great political document and don't want to see it rewritten.

If it was rewritten it would be in legalese and 2000 pages long, and even more debatable in the court of law.

Today nothing is succinct.

The thing is the degree of consensus necessary to change it is so high that a convention will never take place. 3/4 of the states. That is a bar too high.

As it should be, government shouldn't change much.

The real question Joe, is how should it "change" do you have an example of things that you would put in it?

#30 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-17 10:49 AM | Reply

Except that I regard it as a great political document and don't want to see it rewritten.

I was talking about the people who do, so why are you arguing with me?

The thing is the degree of consensus necessary to change it is so high that a convention will never take place. 3/4 of the states. That is a bar too high.

It's two thirds, not three fourths. 34 states. And 27 have already signed on. It's closer than you think.

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-17 10:50 AM | Reply

Joe,

It's 2/3 of congress.

"A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States)"

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 10:54 AM | Reply

The real question Joe, is how should it "change" do you have an example of things that you would put in it?

Do you have all day?

Just kidding. I do think the Second Amendment needs to be rewritten to reiterate the consensus interpretation that existed for hundreds of years before the 2000s where judges and lawyers started doing the NRA's bidding.

I also think healthcare coverage needs to be guaranteed as a human right.

I also think there needs to be a natural resources amendment that prevents the political back and forth from allowing degradation of air and water.

That's all that comes to mind for now. I'm sure i could think of more.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-17 10:55 AM | Reply

My bad, Jeff. It's 2/3 to call the Convention; 3/4 to ratify the results.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-17 11:03 AM | Reply

#34 No worries.

#33 I fully agree that the 2nd should be rewritten. That it's meaning is so heavily debated to this day suggests that it was poorly written.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 11:06 AM | Reply

Joe, it's 2/3 Congress and 3/4 of the states legislatures needed for a constitutional convention or amendment.

#36 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 12:28 PM | Reply

#36 Goat - See Joe's #34

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 12:37 PM | Reply

remember when the "libbies" totally disregarded the emoluments clause

me neither

anyway, the fact that a card-carrying know-it-all claimed that exact same thing, (i.e. hates the constitution) and another fool lamented they can only give it 1 newsworthy flag, is hard evidence todays "right" are a cabal of Brain Damaged Morons

when will you people learn you can't debate anything with lying POS's who are constantly creating their own alternate universe?

#38 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-09-17 01:15 PM | Reply

F--- the Constitution.
--the Left

#1 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-09-17 09:13 AM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY

You keep saying things like that but both parties brought us the patriot act. Nothing says F--- the constitution like the patriot act.

#39 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-09-17 01:17 PM | Reply

The anti-American (R)tards in general and especially in this thread only know one part of the constitution, the 2nd amendment, and these pathetic POS only know half of that.
The usual suspects (see Trumphumpers) in this thread are doing a lot of projecting.

#40 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-09-17 02:20 PM | Reply

F--- the Constitution.

--the Left

#1 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-09-17 09:13 AM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 3

#1 It is a shame I can only give that post 1 NW flag.

#2 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It's a shame you found it worth the first one.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-17 04:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Thanks for the sarcastic funny flag, Josef. Josef is one of these sniveling Stalinists who would shred the checks and balances in the Constitution to centralize all power in a Kremlin-by-the-Beltway.

#26 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Jesus H would you update your talking points you ------ waterhead.

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-17 04:49 PM | Reply

It's a shame you found it worth the first one.
#41 | Posted by jpw

It is a shame I can only give your post 1 NW flag.

#43 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-09-17 05:22 PM | Reply

Major change I advocate is the Congress will hold office only for one term in their lifetime.

No more lifers.

Senators would be selected by the State legislators, not like House elections.

All citizens have the option of arms, but will attend free classes in how to properly use arms, classes provided by the State gov't. The States will consider all US citizens in the State militia.

All employers, no matter if employees or contractors, will run identity checks for legal employment. Both face stiff penalties for violating law.

Supreme Court Justices serve a max of 6 years. Not elected, but not life.

#44 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-09-17 07:51 PM | Reply

#44 -- that is one thing I would want in a new Constitution. Another one is public campaign financing. $0.50 per person is more than enough to distribute to presidential candidates for campaigning.
But both of those are self defeating to the congressmen who will be making the new Constitution.

We need to decide who makes the new Constitution first. And it shouldn't be anyone who has a major conflict of interest in doing it.

#45 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 08:00 PM | Reply

#45 | Posted by goatman Be careful what you wish for. The states could convene a Constitutional Convention. It just takes a call by 2/3s of the states. Consider who holds power in a majority in most of them. I doubt you would like the results.

#46 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-18 07:22 AM | Reply

#33 I fully agree that the 2nd should be rewritten. That it's meaning is so heavily debated to this day suggests that it was poorly written.

#35 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It's not that it's "poorly written", it's that the conditions for which it was written no longer apply. Militias were in lieu of a standing army, and the slave states demanded the ability to form slave patrols to capture runaways and to put down slave rebellions. Also, to protect from hostile "Indians" and wild animals. Today there are no slaves, the "Indians" have made peace treaties with the US, most people are in no danger from wild animals and we have, effectively, (even though it has to be re-authorized every two years) a standing army.

It now creates more danger to the public than the lack of guns does. Oh, and if more guns make us safer, why does the country with the most gun deaths by far (not including war zones) also have the most guns by far? We have 5% of the world's population but 42% of the world's guns. But, apparently, we need more guns.

#47 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-09-19 01:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#47 | Posted by WhoDaMan As a Japanese Admiral stated in 1941, "The ideal of invading the United States is insanity. There would be gunfire erupting from every blade of grass".

#48 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-20 08:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort