Ginsberg to Egypt: "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012..."
February 6, 2012 - 5:56pm
"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. Interesting exclamation mark upon Obama's recent admitting to not liking our Constitution's restrictions/limitations on what "he" can do! Dang people. No... Ginsberg wants her independence SCOTUS to rule and tell/force us to all think/do as told by their little tight knit group and no limitation and Obama wants the same thing as ALL socialist/communist radicals want to be King. I am screaming to you... does it get any clearer with all evidence on the table? Their kind? Conditioning into this nation.... and "changing" it into the U.S.S.A. I'd like to know how many wars there have to be before people get with the idea there's nothing new under the sun? See THEM for what they are! Radical enemies of everything true, right, free and just.
February 6, 2012 - 6:45pm
#2
Taken out of context WK5 - but I guess the truth does not matter as long as you have made your point.
"I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," given its original exclusion of women, slaves and Native Americans." You didn't even have the grace to quote one entire sentence let alone the entire interview. There was nothing about Obama wishing to usurp power to himself not even by inference nor was she being disrespectful of our Constitution or the vision of the framers. BUSTED.
February 6, 2012 - 6:52pm
#3
And in less than 500 words!
February 6, 2012 - 7:19pm
#4
From WK5 here usual nonsense. From Lottie the truth.
February 7, 2012 - 2:33pm
#5
Taken out of context WK5 - but I guess the truth does not matter as long as you have made your point.
"I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," given its original exclusion of women, slaves and Native Americans." You didn't even have the grace to quote one entire sentence let alone the entire interview. There was nothing about Obama wishing to usurp power to himself not even by inference nor was she being disrespectful of our Constitution or the vision of the framers. Sorry lotti... I had read the entirety Ginsberg's feelings/beliefs and her purposes are clear. If you will note as well, our U.S. Constitution covers everyone quite nicely and it was only specific groups of people that wished to not see it that way. Those same words are all inclusive if you read it with that in mind and in heart. Which I do. Because of so many of you needing to carve up the nation so much on behalf of claims of tolerance and diversity, you're actually the one's that is now the groups causing DIVISION as America's house is falling in such. While laying claim to things not a one of us has ever had right to, and where you all are too often caught using government as yes, a thieving tool. Wasn't right "back then" and my darlings all... its not right now either. But continue along this crippled up little roadway to hell. You'll be the first to enjoy its pleasures. Shocked I know, but it will come and it will eventually dawn on you what you've done if you can stop trying to blame all the woe on just your favorite points of attack. When people don't wish to help such any longer, and ya'll have managed to strip out everything that was right? You'll see, only a little too late. There will be nobody able/capable of helping anyone then. Too many of you are right with Ginsberg... as you make for a dictator to do to you exactly what such socialists/communists always do. Lotti... you think there are rules now? Wait until you try to bear up under that and have no freedom nor liberty nor justice left? And not a soul even in your own households to trust either. It is written. It is a known. There is nothing new under the sun. Yes, and I say this while taking GREAT note as to just what "the women's movement" and many others that have not been right and all the hell/mayhem and suffering coming out of it. Women becoming all that they hated? And other groups that are just as bad and caused their own miseries to grow and grow because they all are doing "unto" as if to say its their turn? Yes, I suppose you think welfare queens are going to feed this nation... and rear up the next generation of fine Americans too right? As you've shoved God out? Few of you have thought it all through enough. "Busted" all will be.
February 7, 2012 - 4:37pm
#6
"If you will note as well, our U.S. Constitution covers everyone quite nicely and it was only specific groups of people that wished to not see it that way. Those same words are all inclusive if you read it with that in mind and in heart. Which I do." Is that why the Constitution has been amended multiple times - because it was all inclusive but only you could see it? Sometimes in your desire to always be "right" about everything you come of sounding a little bit as though you are the one who has not "thought it through". And if you in fact had read the remarks and I take you at your word - to truncate a specific sentence to make it say something that it did not is beyond shameful. For the record the Constitution is not about heart or one man's interpretation of intent. It is much more complex than that which is why it has been amended twenty seven times and will likely be amended again. Nothing created of man is perfect. As we grow, we change our expectations of ourselves as individuals and as a nation as well. To see Ruth Bader Ginsberg cast as a conspirator against the welfare of the state is a stretch that leaves me shaking my head - as much in your world view does. I honestly don't see what any of this has to do with welfare queens and the act of shoving God out (not really sure how that could be done actually) but both of these subjects are being raised by candidates who are looking for "hot buttons" to push. At least you didn't reference the movement to "take our guns away". Bzzt.
February 7, 2012 - 5:20pm
#7
Amendments that came about to do what? Clarify. To clarify what should have been already assumed in the wording of that document, but people being what they are in all manner and sort... needed it spelled out. It certainly does not say one has a right to many of the obligations placed upon taxpayers for their fellow man outside of each of us giving of our own charitable hearts and personal treasure that which we feel moved to give. To expect that a limited government does not have the power, nor the means itself to go hunting down and stealing for the sake of causes personal to each one of us on any given occasion. I can certainly go along with provisions made for a limited few things I can count on one hand only to help assist the personal pursuit - as an education. Not chase people who do not want it and deny the error to force it upon them and definitely not to outstretch all manner/means of common sense to do it. As with all the rest of the largesse we now BLEED DEBT unto. My dear, it is all interconnected and the blame goes deep into the stupidity of this nation. The wording of that document was most certainly clear and not quite as complex as so, so very many wish to make it... so they can make of it whatever they will for, or against whomever they will. Like I said... nothing has changed under the sun. Its the wretched hypocrisies that get me the most though. All I know is I continue to look at the bold hard truths that stand out in front of all faces in this country... just to watch the idiot loops be performed like altar sacrifices using the same tired old excuses twisted around to look new - but aren't. Hot buttons? Its intoxicating how well American citizens allow themselves to be played against eachother... but if they were not so fond of trying to do to one another what each of them is so very guilty of and actually voted pro-Constitutional America - not so much for a handout? There would be no hot buttons for a politician to try pressing based on purchasing, for nobody would have any wrongful, lying, deceitful, corrupt habits playing into it. Either ignorantly or knowingly... its still going to end badly. For all OUR warts, Ginsberg is wrong just as you are lotti. Our U.S. Constitution in 2012 IS proper and with the times. It only takes people that respect it and defend it as it is. Which is something "ya'll" aren't doing much of these days especially our dear Ginsberg. I remind you of what she said about the abortion issue? She had assumed the "privilege" was allowed only to deal with the undesirables and that which was NOT WANTED. No... its too much to ask for people to behave and teach their children to and not consider all taboos as all that wrong. But look at the MISERY unleashed in all that fabulous kind of cruelty to the unborn mind you? Consider the Welfare State and the Women's movement gone too far? What did it teach and certainly? What did it do first and foremost to children? To the old folks in families? To the disabled? Newborns spend more time with daycare workers warehoused because Mommy wants more, but without a husband? Men that dart their penis' around without any accountability to women who were taught all the wrong things about women's rights.... suffering painful relationships, breakdowns, diseases, harmed suffering and sad children - hurting and longing for just a Mommy AND a Daddy who loves them? To enjoy the rigors of trying to get a birthday cake on the Welfare Food Stamp rolls because somebody somewhere says its a right to expect and constitutional to STEAL from others? Issues and hot buttons? It all takes "the cake"! Egypt going to write a constitution under all that generous caring and sharing and peaceable Muslim Brotherhood? And Ginsberg doesn't think Egypt could profit from our U.S. Constitution in 2012? Honey... right now AMERICA ITSELF could profit from it. The Liberal left wants to burn it... right along with every other evil soul that can benefit/profit somehow/someway. You're helping to light that bonfire... leave me out of it for I won't go along with any other way. You're all running to slavery, and you can't even see it.
February 7, 2012 - 6:16pm
#8
 
Taken out of context WK5 - but I guess the truth does not matter as long as you have made your point.
"I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," given its original exclusion of women, slaves and Native Americans." You didn't even have the grace to quote one entire sentence let alone the entire interview. There was nothing about Obama wishing to usurp power to himself not even by inference nor was she being disrespectful of our Constitution or the vision of the framers. I would think that attempting to add words to a sentence to adjust its meaning is just as despicable as not including the whole sentence. What Ginsburg said was "I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012." She did not say "given its original exclusion of women, slaves and Native Americans." which is a Huffpo add-in. If one would actually listen to the interview in its entirety, you will notice several inferences to the US Constitution being "old" and the explicit inference that "Human Rights" are included in other constitutions implying that they are not within the US Constitution. I find her despicable and the poster child for the liberal social thought that the US Constitution is not good enough. She is nothing more than a judicial activist hack that truly believes that she should not rule on the law, but adjust the law to fit her views.
February 7, 2012 - 7:38pm
#9
"If one would actually listen to the interview in its entirety, you will notice several inferences to the US Constitution being "old" and the explicit inference that "Human Rights" are included in other constitutions implying that they are not within the US Constitution." If I fell prey to a Huffpo revision, then I apologize - that is not where I get my information knowingly and what I read was evidently second hand from them - but I have now read other transcripts although I have not listened to the interview - and I still do not think that the outcry that is going up is justified or founded in fact. The idea that our Constitution is the only resource for evolving countries trying to create a basis for modern and just governance is asinine and to say that other constitutions have value, particularly those that have been drafted more recently and in the same part of the world that is looking for ideas does not seem to me a hanging offense. The outcry over this is like all the other faux rage that I see demonstrated in order to placate those who cling to the notion that we are the only people on God's earth with a clue as to what justice is - I think that is very far indeed from the truth. We started at a better point than most and we have made some hard won progress - but we are certainly not that shining example on a hill that all the world should model itself after. That is political cant and pabulum for people who need to feel superior in order to function.
February 7, 2012 - 8:42pm
#10
If I fell prey to a Huffpo revision, then I apologize - that is not where I get my information knowingly and what I read was evidently second hand from them - but I have now read other transcripts although I have not listened to the interview - and I still do not think that the outcry that is going up is justified or founded in fact. The idea that our Constitution is the only resource for evolving countries trying to create a basis for modern and just governance is asinine and to say that other constitutions have value, particularly those that have been drafted more recently and in the same part of the world that is looking for ideas does not seem to me a hanging offense. The outcry over this is like all the other faux rage that I see demonstrated in order to placate those who cling to the notion that we are the only people on God's earth with a clue as to what justice is - I think that is very far indeed from the truth. We started at a better point than most and we have made some hard won progress - but we are certainly not that shining example on a hill that all the world should model itself after. That is political cant and pabulum for people who need to feel superior in order to function. I don't recall anyone making any such reference that our Constitution should be the only resource. I really wouldn't expect you to understand anything about the "faux rage" because apparently you find nothing in what Ginsburg said offensive, which is par for the course for some who see the US Constitution in the same light as she does, imperfectly not addressing and substantiating a particular point of view. The "faux rage" is not that Ginsburg suggested that others should be reviewed, but the total discounting of the US Constitution. The "faux rage" is about her being sworn to uphold it, but she consistently discounts it as needing change. As to the US not being that shining example, it most certainly is the only government in the world that is a representative republic and is, despite those who would discount it, the only example of it in the world. |
Scene Around | |||||
Taken out of context WK5 - but I guess the truth does not matter as long as you have made your point.
"I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," given its original exclusion of women, slaves and Native Americans."
You didn't even have the grace to quote one entire sentence let alone the entire interview. There was nothing about Obama wishing to usurp power to himself not even by inference nor was she being disrespectful of our Constitution or the vision of the framers.