Fresh on the heels of their Hamas-protected trip to Gaza, the so-called feminist, American antiwar group Code Pink, co-founded by top Obama funder Jodie Evans, is running banner advertisements on the English language version of the official Web site of a terrorist sympathizing group, the Muslim Brotherhood, one of which invites the Muslim Brotherhood to “join us in cleansing our country.”



The ad, titled “Arrest the War Criminals” with a subhead that contains the invitation to “join us in cleansing our country” links back to a Code Pink site that calls for the kidnapping of former President George W. Bush, his wife Laura and other former members of his administration through ‘citizens arrests’ for defending America against terrorists in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks by Al Qaeda.

Trying to think of what a conservative example of this would be to explain it to some liberals.

Something like, say, people advocating the murder of elected officials who don't uphold their interpretation of the powers of government?

Something like, say, people advocating the murder of elected officials who don't uphold their interpretation of the powers of government?

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you find so hard to understand?

What part of "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." is terribly confusing?

What part of "Law" addles your brain?

Does the meaning of "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government," escape you?

I don't understand why people say "interpretation of powers of government". The Constitution isn't confusing, it's written in English; it doesn't need to be "interpreted".

The Consitution does need a great deal of interpretation. It is very short, and its own clarity makes it vague when applied to specific situations.

What is "unreasonable" search and seizure? What is "cruel and unusual punishment"? There is not one right answer to such questions.

The idea that there is one, clear, right answer to Constitutional questions is simply a way of saying one's own view is necessarily right and all others are necessarily wrong.

It has nothing to do with one's own view. You want it to have something to do with personal views, because that is easier to argue and dismiss. Do you contend the words are malleable and mutable? How do you provide consistent basis by which law may be derived, applied or challenged? If the langauge needs a great deal of interpretation, then The Constitution may as well not exist, because you can interpret it to mean nothing or anything.

If it is supposedly the basis for all law, and the ultimate Law of the Land, then what use does it have?

This is completely sily. It's a false dilemma of "if meanings are not set in absolute stone, then they can be anything anyone wants them to be".

It's very easy to have a consistent basis. When a question comes up, the courts decide it. That becomes precedent, and is used for all similar cases until and unless a better answer to the question is found.

I don't want it to have anything to do with personal views; it does have to do with personal views. People are always saying "it doesn't need interpretation, it clearly means X". Yeah, according to them, according to someone else it clearly means Y. Don't give me this crap about "malleable language"; if there were only one clear meaning we wouldn't have such debates.

Just so we're clear, your entirely incorrect and laughable definition of what constitutes constitutional breaches are punishable by death in your view? (or at least the violent overthrow of the gov't)

I'm not sure what you define to be "consistent" but setting new precedent and then using it until yet newer precedent is found is not defined as "consistent" to me. Not whatsoever. You are ignoring the temporal context of the word and only focusing on the fact it is "consistently" applied until it is discarded. I'd argue, you're just taking an interpretation (not a necessarily "wrong" interpretation) of the word "consistent" and picking it such that you can declare the way The Constitution is adhered as being consistent.

Again, the dog does not wag the tail. It is pure induction and circular logic to say that "because meaning of The Constitution is debated over, it is evidence that the Constitution is not clear, because if it were, there would be no debate."

MOST of the rules the court has made are consistant over the span of 50-100 years. What you're trying to claim is 'immutable' --however the intent of the constitution was NEVER that the laws and Constitution were immutable. That is why there is room for ammendments, why there is a judicial branch. It is fully expected that the zeitgeist would change and that the winds of change would require a revisting of the interpretation of the laws. The constitution is very specific in some places. (occasionally odd places, but for the most part they're targeted)

Congress shall make NO law....
Other times the language is deliberatly left open. What is Cruel and Unusual in one circumstance is not Cruel and Unusual in another.

You're arguing for a strict constructionist point of view, without really understanding that the construction was intentionally fluid in many cases.

No one is arguing that there are occasions that the interpretations have occasionally stretched the bounds of original intent and somtimes even creduility, however it would be disingenuous to claim they are 'inconsistant' -- what you mean to say is they are inconsistant in some key areas that are near and dear to you, simply because those issues ARE so contentious.

Just so we're clear, constitutional breaches are punishable by death in your view? (or at least the violent overthrow of the gov't)

Just so we're clear, constitutional breaches are punishable by death in your view?

(or at least the violent overthrow of the gov't)

I believe that many of those who are arguing that the Constitution is not clear have never actually read the words of the Constitution in areas where it is considered unclear.

While the Constitution has room written into it to be flexible in some very limited areas (cruel and unusual for example is defined as subjective). The powers such as interstate trade and its explicit limitation in the 10th amendment have NO subjective areas written into them, yet the courts keep trying to say there is where there is no construction of the document in the definitions at the time of its writing which would allow such expansion. Are we to believe that all works of language should be understood in the context of what the words mean when they are read rather then when they were written? If so then Huck was never friends with nigger Jim, or Huck was black.