Which part of the Constitution do liberals hate the most?

Question

There are a few choices that I can see.
1. Article 1 Section 2 where it says that the President is Commander in Chief. The Democrats in Congress have been trying to take the president's constitutional power away from him in their attempts to dictate troop movements.
2. The First Amendment, Senator Kerry and Durbin have both expressed interest in bringing back the "fairness doctrine" which is a direct violation of freedom of speech on the radio airwaves.
3. The Second Amendment, Democrats are always in favor of unreasonable gun control.
4. The Tenth Amendment, which says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In fairness to the Democrats almost everybody in the country hates this amendment. The Department of Education is unconstitutional according to this amendment.
5. The Twelth Amendment, the Electoral College.

Atavacron,
1. Never said the president was emperor, just that the democrats should follow the Constitution. They do have the right to cut funding for the war, they don't have the right to say how many troops there should be and what they should do.
2. Yes, I am ticked off that the democrats want to take away first amendment protection on the radio. I would not support it if Republicans tried to take away CNN's first amendment rights.
3.Your example is an extreme case, you know that democrats are far more restrictive than that.
4. Interstate highways, would obviously fall under interstate commerce, but interstate commerce does not mean that the government can do whatever it wants. If people don't like it they should change the Constitution.
5. Never said that this amendment has been violated just that liberals hate it. Most liberals still can't comprehend how Bush won the election in 2000 when he lost the popular vote.

Answer 1

Well, lets see.............

-The purpose of civil government is NOT to make sure everyone has health insurance..... uh oh--strike one.

- The purpose of Government is NOT to make sure everybody's seat belt is buckled or they don't consume trans-fat.....oops, strike two.

- The purpose of civil Government is NOT to take care of people who can't take care of themselves. As nice as this idea sounds, this is the job of the family or the Church. These are separate jurisdictions.........hmmm, strike three!

Shall I go on?

- The purpose of government is NOT to educate the children of the State. The State has no children! (The State has never even been pregnant!)

- The purpose of Government is NOT to protect the environment. Government should defend – not attack – private property rights.

These are all SOCIALIST Goals that are based on a Socialist paradigm. They come straight from the Communist Manifesto. They are not based on an AMERICAN foundation.

Answer 2

1. Stupid cons (like you, but not all cons) forget thet Congress was designed by the founding fathers to CHECK his authority) He's not Emperor, no matter how much he'd like to be.

2. Ask yourself this? Are you REALLY ticked that this is happening or are you just mad that it's the other guys that bring it up. Rephrase....would you have the same objection if the GOP needed/wanted it?

I'd bet not.

3. Define unreasonable. Mental patients need an Uzi? Somebody needs a rocket launcher or an F-15?

4. The Constitution technically doesn't provide for Interstate highway creation. Or a host of other things you'd have the state do under your constructionist view...never mind that the state COULDN'T AFFORD to do it.

5. I haven't seen it usurped yet. What else happened in your dream before you woke up?

No lie, arch...thumbs up.

Edit:

Quote:

1. Never said the president was emperor, just that the democrats should follow the Constitution. They do have the right to cut funding for the war, they don't have the right to say how many troops there should be and what they should do.

Certainly I can argue (CORRECTLY) that troop size is a function of funding. If you ask me for the money to fund 100,000 troops, I certainly get to challenge whether or not that number you give me is valid. Whaddaya know, I can also correctly question your goals? "You want $7 billion from the American people for "x" you have to prove to me that "x" can be done AND is beneficial.

Quote:

2. Yes, I am ticked off that the democrats want to take away first amendment protection on the radio. I would not support it if Republicans tried to take away CNN's first amendment rights.

And, given the very tenor of this GOP good Dems evil post, I can surmise that you're full of crap.

Quote:
3.Your example is an extreme case, you know that democrats are far more restrictive than that.

So, your 2nd Amendment right should be unfettered or not?


Quote:

4. Interstate highways, would obviously fall under interstate commerce, but interstate commerce does not mean that the government can do whatever it wants. If people don't like it they should change the Constitution.

In the meantime certain problems of NATIONAL CONCERN come up that have to be addressed...and addressed in a timely fashion. Reworking the Constitution is not a timely process. (Rightly so)


Quote:
5. Never said that this amendment has been violated just that liberals hate it. Most liberals still can't comprehend how Bush won the election in 2000 when he lost the popular vote.

No, dude. What people take issue with is the fact that the math that made it permissible for it to occur is based on voting data that's rife with outright fraud (OH and FLA) When Pat Buchanan (A Republican opponent, btw) says that there's something wrong, that all those votes cast for him weren't rightly his, then there is something WRONG.

Answer 3

The constitution I full heartedly support. It's sometimes our President' interpretation of it I"m not 100% on board for. And even then, he's doing his best.

Consitution I'm fine with, where I have most of my issues are with the Supreme Court and some of the members on it.

If I had to pick an amendment I disagree with, how about number 18 :-D

Answer 4

It is the neoncons who hate the Constitution and especially, Amendements 1 - 10. They particularly don't care for prohibitions against illegal search and seizure - witness the illegal spying that has been going on and is now (belatedly) a point of outrage in the Congress. They also don't care for due process of law - witness attempts to remove habeas corpus and to imprison people indefinitely without recourse to counsel on trumped up charges of terrorism. They would like to do away with freedom of religion - witness the government subsidies to certain religious charities, which favor some religions over others and also attempts to replace the Theory of Evolution with Creationism in public schools. They would also like to do away with freedom of speech - witness the provisions of the "Patriot" Act that tried to force libraries to provide the govt with reading lists for their patrons - if you are afraid to read something because you are being watched, then you are taking away the right of the author to express himself. Also witness attempts to ban flag burning, another form of expression. Additionally, not all liberals are in favor of attempts to undermine Amendment II. Further, the Commander in Chief does not have Constitutional powers to declare war - it is only through bogus legislation, such as the War Powers Act, that Presidents have been skirting the fact that only Congress can declare war. As far as your comments about that which is not reserved to the feds belongs to the states is concerned, this liberal is in favor of that and in fact, Roe v Wade should have been played out in the states, not at the Supreme Court level. I have no objection whatsoever to the Electoral College. As far as the fairness doctrine is concerned, I do not believe this infringes on #1 because by allowing viewpoint a) to air and not viewpoint b) it infringes on the rights of viewpoint b) to be heard, which violates #1. By forcing equal time, #1 is satisifed for both.

Answer 5

Let's not forget the first amendment that states specifically,"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof;" To the leftists, somehow this means no Christmas displays in public places.
Let's not forget Article 1 Section 9 Paragraph 2; "The priviledge of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended , unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Try telling that to the ACLU.
Come to think of it, just what DO they like about the Consitution?

Answer 6

Well, the Republicans have a problem with the 4th amendment (unreasonable search -- warrantless wiretaps), the 5th/6th amendments (US citizens held without (speedy)trial --Pidilla/Gitmo), the Article II (the current VP doesn't acknowlege his office as being a constitutional office or part of the executive branch). There's hypocracy on both sides.

Answer 7

There is nothing in the Contitution about Executive Privilege. Perhaps you need to be reminded of that first. BTW, it's the Chimp in the White House that has been violating the Constitution at every chance he gets. Your post is so unbelievably illogical.

Answer 8

The Liberals don't want a Constitution at all.
They want a lunatic type mentality to sweep our Nation like a wild fire out of control.

But to answer your question;
I think the fact they can't change the Constitution is the part they hate the most.

And that's exactly the part I like the most.
No matter how hard they try and work around that one little thing which keeps them from achieving their life long ambitions of destroying America they just can't seem to do it.

Our Founding Forefathers were absolutely brilliant.

Answer 9

As far as I can tell, the people woth the least regard for the Constitution these days are our President and Vice President. Fortunately, the constitution provides a remedy for that.

Answer 10

I can tell how much you hate freedom, reject tolerance, and despise dissent. I can tell, by the actions of the neo-cons who worship you as the symbol of the State, that your regime sees dissent as being treason. In February, 2003, before the current incarnation of the Iraq war began, a million-strong antiwar demonstration took place in New York City. Millions more protested around the world. The right wing New York Sun on the eve of the demonstration urged right wing mayor Michael Bloomberg to do whatever he could to obstruct it. He tried. I was there. I saw it. The people, who were not issued a permit to march did so anyway. You see, George, we are born with the right to free speech and the Constitution codifies it, but it is meaningless unless the people express it. Your autocratic operatives failed to stop the people from expressing their outrage that no matter what you were hell-bent on going to war.

How's this for freedom? While people were protesting in the millions around the world against preplanned invasion of Iraq, the New York city mounted police squashed people against buildings forcing them back with nowhere to go. Horses shoved youngsters and grandmas alike into walls. Police told the demonstrators to walk over those who had fallen to the ground. Yes, sir, by George, you sure do love the people's right to dissent. The truth is, it is you who believe that freedom-loving people, dissenting in opposition to you, are corrupt and decadent. You stated as much when you said: If you are not with us you are against us. When you draw that line, you place yourself on the side of rejecting the Constitution. How dare you? You, by violating the oath you took in January 2005 to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, are corrupt and decadent. Lying to get the country to go to war is a high crime and misdemeanor.

Let us look at more examples of how your regime despises dissent. While protesters were organizing demonstrations, gambler and former Reagan administration official, moralist Bill Bennett said, "Communists are certainly glad to...sponsor and organize [the anti-war rallies]. I don't think everybody who participates is a communist, but communists are certainly behind it..." Made any trade deals with Communist China lately, George? In an email sent to supporters, Gary Bauer, president of the Institute for American Values and former GOP presidential candidate, made the case that anti-war protesters are more damaging to America than terrorists! Bauer said of the protesters, "at the end of the day I believe we have more to fear from the anti-American crowd right here at home." Being anti-war is not being anti-American. Being anti-dissent is. But it goes deeper than that, George. You hate anyone that says anything or demonstrates against you and your manifest destiny policies. You hate it when people express the truth about your corruption, the lies and illegal war, and so, like the old Soviet politburo, your party apparatchiks orchestrate who can and who cannot come to your rallies and speeches. You filter people out. What way is that for the president of the United States to behave? Your operatives scour parking lots for bumper stickers that suggest dissent and toss people associated with them out of meeting halls. You have people signing loyalty oaths before they can come and hear you speak. You eject people because of the clothing or the buttons they wear. You refuse people access because they look like they may protest. That's how much you love freedom and dissent. Perhaps, you would like to lock these people up in GTMO? How about using extraordinary rendition? Extraordinary rendition is the CIA delivering terror suspects into the hands of foreign intelligence services without any extradition proceedings. It is exporting suspects for the purpose of obtaining information by proxy torturers.