What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Barrister]

Testicles have their own quiet charm.

I do believe this is the first time in human history that those words have been put together in that particular order.

[crazy canuck]

The only thing I have tried and failed to do is obtain an explanation from you as to why you asserted the claim that a constitution does not protect rights. 

I need not defend a position I have never taken.  Have you weaseled your strawman arguments enough yet to bore even yourself with them, or are we going to continue to see you trying out new strawman arguments to avoid conceding the points I am spanking you on?

Ok, I understand why you want to back away from a claim that changing a constitution does not change rights. 

[Eddie Teach]

"If you don't come back to Godgod, we are not going anywhere as a country."- Roy Moore

Fucking fruitcake

That was rather impertinent of him.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ok, I understand why you want to back away from a claim that changing a constitution does not change rights.

The Constitution was originally drafted without a Bill of Rights.  It's not because Madison, Hamilton et al. didn't believe in freedom of speech, religion, etc.  On the contrary, it's because they presumed such rights existed and formed the background.  The constitution simply sets forth how the government works and what it can do.  On the original understanding, the government can't impose a state religion because it isn't given the power to do so.  The framers originally believed the first amendment was redundant.

The anti-federalists objected that were too many ambiguities and that a clearer statement of limitations on the government was needed.  Thus, the Bill of Rights which clarifies and specifies limits on federal power.  But the 9th amendment makes clear that all this is against a background where every person begins with and retains their natural rights.

A positivist might view the matter very differently, but that's a school of thought that postdates the drafting and adoption of the US constitution.

[grumbler]

This is a total strawman.  i have never claimed that the US is unique in this regard.  In fact, I regard it as universally true, and parliamentary sovereignty to be untenable.

You have conceded, I take it, that Canada's parliament is not sovereign? 

As to the first point, please explain further then what you meant by drawing a distinction between the Parliamentary system of government and the US form of government.

As to the second point, I have no idea how you got there. In fact quite the opposite.

Sorry, homie don't play the Yicratic game.  if you have abandoned all of your own contentions and have resorted to simply challenging mine in the same fashion over and over with the same strawmen time and again, I'm out.  Discover something about the Enlightenment and its view of natural rights, and you might be educated enough to carry on a conversation on this topic.

[grumbler]

Ok, I understand why you want to back away from a claim that changing a constitution does not change rights. 

Yet another strawman. 

I have backed away from nothing.

[grumbler]

The Constitution was originally drafted without a Bill of Rights.  It's not because Madison, Hamilton et al. didn't believe in freedom of speech, religion, etc.  On the contrary, it's because they presumed such rights existed and formed the background.  The constitution simply sets forth how the government works and what it can do.  On the original understanding, the government can't impose a state religion because it isn't given the power to do so.  The framers originally believed the first amendment was redundant.

The anti-federalists objected that were too many ambiguities and that a clearer statement of limitations on the government was needed.  Thus, the Bill of Rights which clarifies and specifies limits on federal power.  But the 9th amendment makes clear that all this is against a background where every person begins with and retains their natural rights.

A positivist might view the matter very differently, but that's a school of thought that postdates the drafting and adoption of the US constitution.

You are wasting your breath.  CC thinks that rights come from Constitution, not the reverse.  That may be true in Canada (it never struck me as true, but I don't claim to be the expert on Canada's constitutional background that CC claims to be about the US's).  CC won't admit that the US is different, and that its government is formed to preserve pre-existing rights. 

Apparently, CC believes that Americans had no rights between the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the Constitution of the US. 

[11B4V]

Can the Numbnuts in Chief talk and breath at the same time. Maybe a skill he never acquired.

[CountDeMoney]

"If you don't come back to Godgod, we are not going anywhere as a country."- Roy Moore

Fucking fruitcake

Really?

Fucking snowflake.

LET IT BE KNOWN FROM THIS DAY FORWARD
that no one can make references to previous threads evah again. 

[CountDeMoney]

"If you don't come back to Godgod, we are not going anywhere as a country."- Roy Moore

Fucking fruitcake

That was rather impertinent of him.

SEE?  FOUL

[garbon]

Testicles have their own quiet charm.

I do believe this is the first time in human history that those words have been put together in that particular order.

Quiet dignity?

[grumbler]

Testicles have their own quiet charm.

I do believe this is the first time in human history that those words have been put together in that particular order.

Quiet dignity?

Maybe "Quiet silence?"

[garbon]

Testicles have their own quiet charm.

I do believe this is the first time in human history that those words have been put together in that particular order.

Quiet dignity?

Maybe "Quiet silence?"

Nah, they can clack a bit.

[crazy canuck]

Ok, I understand why you want to back away from a claim that changing a constitution does not change rights.

The Constitution was originally drafted without a Bill of Rights.  It's not because Madison, Hamilton et al. didn't believe in freedom of speech, religion, etc.  On the contrary, it's because they presumed such rights existed and formed the background.  The constitution simply sets forth how the government works and what it can do.  On the original understanding, the government can't impose a state religion because it isn't given the power to do so.  The framers originally believed the first amendment was redundant.

The anti-federalists objected that were too many ambiguities and that a clearer statement of limitations on the government was needed.  Thus, the Bill of Rights which clarifies and specifies limits on federal power.  But the 9th amendment makes clear that all this is against a background where every person begins with and retains their natural rights.

A positivist might view the matter very differently, but that's a school of thought that postdates the drafting and adoption of the US constitution.

Sure, but once the constitution was amended to include express rights surely even Grumbler would concede that the constitution could be used to protect those enumerated rights and further amending those rights would have some legal effect.  When he is one of his less pedantic moods that is.

[crazy canuck]

Apparently, CC believes that Americans had no rights between the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the Constitution of the US. 

You are confusing what I think with your apparent belief that in a Parliamentary system rights are only given by Parliament.  It is hard to have an intelligent conversation with you when you are so belligerently ill informed.