Hello:

I thought the Tea Party LOVED the Constitution... But, they DON'T. They want to CHANGE it more to their liking... Let me see... They've got this here new amendment which would drastically CHANGE the Constitution... They want to CHANGE the 17th Amendment, which is how senators are elected.. They want to CHANGE the 10th Amendment, which gives power to the states... Oh yeah, and don't forget about CHANGING the birthright clause in the Constitution - you know the one that's responsible for terror babies...

Besides CHANGING the Constitution into something it ISN'T - you don't hear a peep from 'em when it already got changed - when it comes the NSA violating the Fourth Amendment. You don't hear 'em say anything about our loss of our due process rights, under the Fifth Amendment...

Nope... These Tea Partiers don't LOVE the Constitution... That would mean they like it the way it IS... But, they want to change this country into something unrecognizable.

excon

So from a Brit point of view, what DO the Tea Party movement actually stand for.
They appear to be ultra conservatives.

Since when is amending the Constitution the same as being anti-constitution ? Last I heard amending the Constitution is working within the constitutional framework.

Curly , they appear to me to be united only on fiscal conservative issues . The TPs elected in the Senate voted to repeal 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' homosexuals in the military policy . That tells me they aren't united under social conservative policies.

Here is a good essay on the Tea Party by Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...Party-Movement

I also think the 20th amendment should be changed to get rid of the antiquated 'lame duck ,sessions of Congress . Clearly there is no need for them to have this much time to transition... and they certainly have no business ratifying a treaty in a lame duck session.

Hello again:

So, what does that make me? I LOVE the Constitution just the way it is - the way the founders wrote it. I LOVE the founders.. I thought you conservatives did too. Guess not, huh?

You KNOW the word "conservative" means to conserve.. It DOESN'T mean change everything in sight. LIBERAL means to change stuff...

excon

You quote the amendments enough times to disprove your statement .

If you like it the way the founders wrote it then you must love this part :

Quote:

---

Article V -- Amendment Process

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If you like it the way the founders wrote it then you must love this part

---

Hello again, tom:

What's not to like?

But, let's be clear about it... If I say I love something, then I do. I DON'T say I love something, but want to change the crap out of it. If I wanted to CHANGE it, I'd say I LIKE it OK, but it needs improvement...

You guys don't LOVE the Constitution.. You think it's a work in progress - kind of like LIBERALS think it is... Dude!

excon

Nope... amending the constitution is the correct constitutional way to deal with necessary changes .

The Bill of Rights was in fact the act of the founders themselves to change the constitution they had just authored . They made changes after the ratification .So by your standards ,the founders did not like the constitution the way it was written.

What we object to is a non-elected branch of government imposing constitutional changes on the country .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What we object to is a non-elected branch of government imposing constitutional changes on the country .

---

Hello again, tom:

Me too...

By the way, which one of those changes will stop that?

excon

The tea party hasn't caught up to me yet.:D

My amendments would include periodic Senatorial review of the justices.Let's say a decade performance review. They need to be accountable beyond the very rarely used impeachment process.

Good Luck with the changes Ex and I hope the process isn't as divisive as some of the recent politic'n. Change is a good thing and essential if a society is to progress. You don't want to be caught in an eighteenth century time warp, do you? Or do you?

I expect my own nation will have to have some radical surgery on its Constitution sometime soon so I will watch your progress with interest. By the way, federalism isn't necessarily a bad thing, although I know it was strongly opposed in the US for a long time and by those who want to maintain the inefficiency of state legislatures

We do not oppose federalism . Federalism is a partnership between state and national governance. In the US it assumes a constitutionally defined role for the national government and not a usurpation of power by the national government .

It has different connotations here Tom, the federalies assuming the functions of the states, they have been doing it for a long time with uniform legislation and funding allocations, the most recent example was health reform where state systems will be done away with in favour of specific funding arrangements. Water is another area where the states are forced to comply with the federal administration. We have an interesting piece of legislation called the Trade Practices Act

Obama doesn't like the constitution.

Quote:

---

The White House is preparing an Executive Order on indefinite detention that will provide periodic reviews of evidence against dozens of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, according to several administration officials.

The draft order, a version of which was first considered nearly 18 months ago, is expected to be signed by President Obama early in the New Year. The order allows for the possibility that detainees from countries like Yemen might be released if circumstances there change.

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

Nearly two years after Obama's pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.

---

How's that hopenchange working for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Obama doesn't like the constitution

---

Hello again, Steve:

No, he doesn't... Which should make you happy... Cause if he DID, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and the entire neo-con crew would be in jail for war crimes.

excon

The congress was was seen by the framers as providing two checks the first to provide a balance against the executive branch through the houses controle of the purse strings and the second to protect the stated constitutional rights to the powers not specified by the constitution. For this reason until the 17th amendment the appointment of senators was usually done by some function of state government. This was done to insure that a senators was answerable to the state and thus could be counted on to protect the states interest and not be politically indebted to anyone who had interest that may conflict with the interest of the state that appointed them. The tea party wants to change the selection of senators back to the method in-placed by the founding fathers. The out *** they are hoping for is a greater protection of states rights, and the elimination of the influence peddling brought on by the current election fundraising process, both admirable ambitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmeeks

The tea party wants to change the selection of senators back to the method in-placed by the founding fathers. The out *** they are hoping for is a greater protection of states rights, and the elimination of the influence peddling brought on by the current election fundraising process, both admirable ambitions.

---

Hello c:

Term limits would do the same thing... I fail to see the wisdom, however, of replacing one group of influence peddlers, (lobbyists) - with another, (state legislatures).

I don't disagree that there been an erosion of states rights. I just don't know how to get it back, or whether it SHOULD be gotten back. The result will, of course, cripple the federal government, which is the goal. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

excon