Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Politics, Society

Moore: Getting Rid of All Of The Amendments After The 10th Amendment Would “Eliminate Many Problems”
Moore has previously said he would criminalize homosexuality, strip LGBT citizens of rights, bar Muslims from Congress, and apply “God’s law” over the Constitution in the imposition of Christian values.
In his appearance on the extremist radio program “Aroostook Watchmen” with Maine residents Jack McCarthy and Steve Martin,  Moore explored their shared view that 9-11 was a possible government conspiracy. One of the hosts said he would like to see an amendment that would void all the amendments after the Tenth. Moore readily agreed and said
“That would eliminate many problems. You know people don’t understand how some of these amendments have completely tried to wreck the form of government that our forefathers intended.”
Moore cited the 17th Amendment as an example but the host turned to the 14th Amendment as “only approved at the point of the gun.”  Moore again agreed and said:
“Yeah, it had very serious problems with its approval by the states,” Moore replied. “The danger in the 14th Amendment, which was to restrict, it has been a restriction on the states using the first Ten Amendments by and through the 14th Amendment. To restrict the states from doing something that the federal government was restricted from doing and allowing the federal government to do something which the first Ten Amendments prevented them from doing. If you understand the incorporation doctrine used by the courts and what it meant. You’d understand what I’m talking about.”
Note many of us do know what the incorporation doctrine is and know that Moore was criticizing the extension of core protections like equal protection and due process to the states.
Many voters are struggling to ignore the immorality in voting for a man like Moore in the face of multiple allegations of misconduct with young girls coming from almost a dozen women and an array of witnesses from neighbor to former colleagues to security officers.  To their credit, more Republicans came forward this weekend to denounce Moore.  This includes Alabama’s Republican Senator Richard Shelby.  Putting aside those allegations, there remain deeply disturbing and dangerous views of Moore about the rights of citizens.  Ironically, these are rights that protect us from the abuses of the government, a rally cause for many conservative and libertarian voters.  That is why Moore is not simply a moral but a legal hazard for this country.

171 thoughts on “Moore: Getting Rid of All Of The Amendments After The 10th Amendment Would “Eliminate Many Problems””

  1. “Even without Roy Moore, the GOP is in a downward spiral”

    By Jennifer Rubin December 11 at 1:30 PM

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/12/11/even-without-roy-moore-the-gop-is-in-a-downward-spiral/

    “The pattern of denial and smearing of accusers we now hear from Trump and the Fox News sycophants is not likely to sit well with Americans. A recent academic study undertaken by Murat Haner of the University of South Florida-Sarasota Manatee, and Teresa C. Kulig and Francis T. Cullen of the University of Cincinnati, conducted by YouGov America from Oct. 7 to Oct. 24 found:

    “Nearly 3 in 5 Americans (58.1%) believe that “the women are telling the truth when they reported that Mr. Trump sexually harassed or assaulted them.” Nearly 7 in 10 (69.7%) stated that it was unlikely or highly unlikely that all the women were lying. . . . Two thirds of Americans (67.9%) believe that the women did not report the incidents because “they are afraid” of “powerful men, like Mr. Trump,” and believe that “nothing will be done.”

    “With regard to the “Access Hollywood” tape, 62.4 percent believe “Mr. Trump was admitting that he sexually assaulted women.” And here’s the kicker: “Nearly two thirds of Americans (65.5%) believe that if the accusations can be proven, President Trump should be impeached by the U.S. Congress.”

    “In sum, the GOP’s tax bill is a dud, it is shedding support and it is led by a man whom most Americans believe assaulted women and, if the allegations can be proved, should be impeached for it. And all this comes before the possible election of Moore to the Senate.”

        1. Marky Mark Mark – you clearly cannot answer the question, so why the insults? Just to protect your fragile ego?

  2. “Democratic lawmaker calls on Senate to protect Page program participants from Roy Moore”

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-lawmaker-calls-on-senate-to-protect-page-program-participants-from-roy-moore/

    “Gwen Moore noted that the House Page Program was eliminated after the scandal involving former GOP Rep. Mark Foley who sent “suggestive emails and text messages to male Pages,” she wrote.

    “Senate pages are high school juniors and must be at least 16 years old and attending school, according to a description of the program. They are sponsored by their state’s senator to function primarily as messengers of legislative material and communications within Congress.

    “”We need to be vigilant stewards of these children going forward,” Gwen Moore added.”

  3. I absolutely agree that the 17th and 26th should be repealed, the latter for obvious reasons. That said, the 14th was unconstitutionally ratified, and all clear-eyed historians know this. The 14th has been terribly misinterpreted and misapplied ever since. That said, if the 14th were interpreted and implemented as the framers intended, I can live with it’s having been unconstitutionally ratified, but we can’t count on the revisionist courts to do this. It would need to be re-written with an eye to clarifying its original meaning and intent. (For starters, plse see Publius Huldah blog and federalistblog.com, and Opinerlog.)

    1. I see. You’ve appointed yourself to be the “Grand Constitutionalist” in charge of determining what “the framers intended” for any piece of the Constitution to which you don’t approve of today. Check. Glad you’re scribbling here and not out harassing real people.

      This is to “we don’t need no three branches of government, I’ll volunteer to run things” jimmie

      1. Marky Mark Mark – you did not prove him wrong, you only tried to insult him and I think his skin is much thicker than yours. I have this feeling that if we all ganged up on you and started insulting your “comments” that you would run upstairs to your mother crying. Actually, I think it would only take a couple of us because your ego is so fragile.

        Marky Mark Mark, you are a paper tiger and no one takes you seriously.

    2. The “Reconstruction Amendments” were and are unconstitutional. Amendments shall NOT be adopted without proper ratification, without a quorum of free, independent states and without the duress of post-war military occupation, oppression and tyranny.

      Everything Lincoln and the successors to his dictatorship did was and is unconstitutional.

  4. Fox News says Moore is down 10 points.

    Voters in Alabama should put Moore in and remove and replace him with another republican after he is charged, convicted or successfully litigated against.

    Democrats are so moral that, for 40 years, they didn’t dredge up allegations until ten minutes before this election.

    1. George,
      ..
      I think Shelby’s “write-in recommendation” will take votes away from Moore.
      A relatively small percentage of write-in votes for Luther Strange could have a big impact on the outcome of the election.
      Should be interesting to see how this plays out….I don’t see a big margin win for either candidate, but I’d put the odds at about 7-5 in favor of a Moore victory.

  5. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/opinion/roy-moore-alabama-election.html?_r=0

    “Is it fair to compare Trump to Bill Clinton? People never had to listen to tapes of Clinton bragging about all the girls he’d groped. And it really wasn’t until the impeachment that his supporters were confronted with unavoidable evidence that he was the worst kind of sexual harasser. Yet even then, the public did not want him tossed out of office. In areas not involving wanton, repulsive adultery, he was doing a good job. The economy was up. Crime was down.

    “So it’s hard to expect that voters will reject Roy Moore for his extremely creepy sexual history. However, Moore is a special case since he’s awful in so many different ways. It’s not often you run into a modern Senate candidate — even a modern conservative Republican Senate candidate — who says that homosexuality should be illegal, that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed in Congress and that the last great age in American history was the one when we had slavery. And really, if Alabama is prepared to overlook all that — wow Alabama, shame on you.”

    1. Shame on you, Anon. Given the choice between Moore and Jones… hell, that’s easy.
      You shouldn’t blame the people from Alabama. It was the Dems and Establishment Repubs that got us into this predicament.

    2. Another key difference is that, to the best of my knowledge, neither Moore nor Trump have paid an $850,000 settlement to bury a sexual harassment lawsuit.

        1. @ mom – Remember what goes around comes around. Your liberal friends have stuff in the closet as well, perhaps fuller closets.

          1. surimike, do you really think swarthmoremom would let Trump hide behind the skirts of her liberal friends with stuff in their closets? But even more to the point, why do you want Trump to hide behind the skirts of liberals with stuff in their closets?

      4. Well then I guess being a pedophile child molester is okay then.

        This is to “let’s give chomos a chance” tommie

        1. Marky Mark Mark – didn’t they teach writing at your law school? You have another redundancy. Come on, you need an editor. Someone who took high school senior English.

              1. Diane – a redundancy stops the writing from flowing. The reader stops to think about the redundancy rather than the point being made.

                1. Paul, that is the point being made: Stop to think . . . Now go read Sir Walter Scott.

                  1. Diane – I have read Sir Walter Scott, but who reads Ivanhoe these days? I am a big fan of the Russians, except they can be a little depressing.

    3. anonymous – we haven’t even talked about Alcee Hastings who was impeached as a federal judge and then elected to federal office where he has used the federal slush fund to pay off the women he has harassed. I think there is one from AZ, too.

      1. Paul, do you really expect anonymous to let Trump hide behind Alcee Hastings’ skirts? And why do you want Trump to hide behind Alcee Hastings’ skirts?

        1. Diane – you do know that Alcee Hastings is a man and doesn’t wear skirts?

  6. An interesting discourse by the Community…I salute you Professor Turley, though, for underscoring what a danger this man is–and hopefully the good people of Alabama will see through him and take their queue from their Senior Senator, Richard Shelby.

      1. @TMP – I think Liberty simply was suggesting Ms. Lynch meet on the tarmac and visit about their grandkids and such. Nothing untidy as collusion, no, never.

  8. Congratulations, Turley. I used to respect you a great deal. But as I have said before, if you don’t like Roy Moore then just write a headline “I Don’t Like Roy Moore.” Instead, you write an article about Moore’s comments on the Constitutional amendments… that he believes we’d be better off without the one’s after the tenth. And then you highlight the 13th ended slavery. No shit, Sherlock. In fact there are 16 that came after the Bill of Rights. Moore was clearly talking about ones that have debilitated our republic, like the 17th. Yet when he tried to discuss the 17th, the host (and YOU) want to change the subject. Are you sure you didn’t graduate from a neo-journalism school? Because right now I’d say Moore could teach you a few lessons on integrity. Yes, even after all those allegations. Your criticisms don’t matter if they’re done dishonestly. Clean it up, Turley.

    1. You’re right. Molesting 14-year olds practically rings of high integrity.

      This is to “no, I’m not the mistake” mistake

      1. Marky Mark Mark – you are off topic which was your insult to other people so you deserve this one. Normally, I don’t care, people get off-topic, however YOU ARE OFF TOPIC.

        1. No he’s not. Read Turley’s original post. Then read TheMistakenPresident’s critique of Turley’s original post. Mark M. is right on topic. And you ought to know it, Schulteacher.

          1. Diane – I never go back and check, so I am going with my first opinion. You have yours. To each their own.

  9. The allegations relating to his stalking and “dating” underage girls is such a distraction from his record I almost think that the allegations relating to the former are a gift to him. Although I don’t think Roy Moore supporters care about the fact that he hates the USA, it’s Constituion and it’s commitment to the separation of church and state, they are theocrats whose commitment to Christianity is not even skin deep. It’s all about the power to oppress!

  10. Moore’s comment is not very different from Barack Obama’s comment about the problem with the Constitution is that it tells the government what it CAN’T do. But Moore is still a horse’s ass.

    1. “Let me remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”.

      Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964

      1. Roy Moore isn’t committed to liberty. Good grief, he thinks slavery was a good thing. He is against liberty.

  11. Speaking of mental diagnoses, Mr Moore is as much in need of a psychiatric evaluation as Mr Trump is.

    1. It must be easy for you to comment when you have no original thoughts. Just cut-n-paste, right?

  12. When you read this blog you realize that there are many of the ilk of Moore, many bricks short. They can be found in Arizona as well as Alabama. That is why we need a far left and far right party. This way they can be identified and isolated. In issues such as those proposed by Moore, the far right party could be isolated and any collaboration done between the middle left and middle right; the same being the case for the far left whackos. The nut jobs in America need their own arena and must be kept from gumming things up. This would have resulted in Trump running for a fringe party along with the other of his ilk like Moore. Pen up the idiots.

    1. Good points. Extremists deserve representation but only to speak for those that they actually represent. The US system of elections puts extremists in charge of everything when they only were elected because the opposing candidate was considered worse. This is the major weakness of the two party system. Those who plan to vote for Moore say, “I don’t like him, but I want someone who will support guns, and god, and who will oppose civil rights, women’s health, and will oppress anyone who doesn’t look like me.”

      1. Chris, don’t be an ass. I’ve never heard Moore supporters say they oppose civil rights or women’s health. But you surely are lying to oppress those who are twisted in their thinking like you.
        All you libs on the comment board here have nothing but lies to fuel your contempt. Hey, you’re free to hate. It’s your right. But just let it sink in that YOU are the one who is hating. You’re PROJECTING it on Moore.

        1. I’m sure those “very fine people” who marched in Charlottesville are brimming over the top with support for civil rights for all. Those people are, by the way, fellow travelers of Moore and his ilk.

          This is to “I guess I am the mistake” mistake

          1. Marky Mark Mark – those Moore supporters are probably supporters of Civil Rights but not Affirmative Action. Have you a problem with that? They just want a level playing field and someone who represents them. And I think they are going to go out to vote.

    2. issac – when the revolution comes you and I are going up against the wall together. 🙂 Hopefully, they will offer us a blindfold.

    3. Maybe Hillary can give Doug Jones a last minute boost by going to Alabama, and chiding potential Moore voters as “many bricks short”.
      It’s a variation of the “backward” and “basket of deplorables” complaint.
      I think Alabamans would show their appreciation to Hillary, or for that matter to Isaac, if they would go to their state and tell them what’s what and provide outside guidance for the voters of Alabama.

      1. The boost from Shelby helped and there is no need for Hillary to ruin things. Fox News has Jones with a nine point lead die to high independent support but this race is up in the air. BTW. I do find Roy Moore’s statements and actions deplorable. Hillary won’t be saying anything if she wants Jones to win.

        2. ” there is no need for Hillary to ruin things”.
          Aw come, let’s put her out there.
          At least encourage Isaac to go there to enlightened Alabama voters.
          I haven’t spent much time in the South, but I know how much they would appreciate a campaign appearance and lecture from ( preferably) Hillary, 2nd choice, Isaac.

    4. A nice theory, but with very few exceptions, our winner-take all system of elections renders third (or fourth) parties powerless and therefore stillborn.

      1. Marky Mark Mark – each of the states gets to decide how to divide its electoral votes. At least one state is not winner take all. However, I think you would have a tough time convincing the fly-over states to change, they would lose their clout.

  14. Many states gave up slavery before the Emancipation Proclamation (which freed no one) and states in the West gave women the right to vote but had to take it away to join the Union. Much could have been done by local legislation.

    However, the election of Lincoln exacerbated an already volatile situation and Lincoln was willing to unConstitutionally invade the South to try to keep it united, setting off a four-year war with a death toll that has yet to be matched in any war since. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were coerced on The Southern States to allow them back into the Union.

    I don’t totally agree with Moore, but I don’t totally disagree.

    1. Paul, most people don’t know the Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t even enforceable on states in the North. It only applied to southern areas conquered by the Union Army.
      That’s right snowflakes, there was slavery in northern states, too.

      1. TheMistakenPresident – you are absolutely correct. It came as a shock to my students as I explained to them that the Emancipation Proclamation actually freed no one and there was still slavery in the north (two states I think, that Lincoln didn’t want to join the South).

    2. PCS, slavery should have been non-violently evolved out of existence through employment of the constitutional free market tools of advocacy, promotion, boycotts and divestiture. People conveniently ignore the fact that the ultimate cost of the Civil War was probably close to one million dead Americans and, just like the 58,000 in Vietnam, those lives were totally wasted. Lincoln’s idea of compassionate repatriation was the best solution for the benefit of freed slaves who needed a sense of nationhood and self-esteem, which, presumably, they would have obtained in Liberia, according to Lincoln. The slave owners should have paid a “passage tax.”

      1. George – the average “prime” male slave has roughly the same value as a mechanical harvester today. Ideally, the US should have bought the slave out of freedom, leaving their owners with the money to move on. Haiti did this, somewhat unsuccessfully after a revolt. However, it would have been cheaper in the long run.

        1. The Constitutions provided freedom. The slaveholders “pursued their own happiness.” Not every American citizen owned slaves – about 4% did. Not every American shared in the profits of the slaveholders. Every American (i.e. taxpayers) should not be responsible for the slaveholders pursuits under constitutional freedom. Every American should not have been required to pay for the consequences of the actions of slaveholders. The slave-owners, as a group, should have paid for the compassionate repatriation of freed slaves – possibly a “passage” or “repatriation tax.

          1. George – I used to own property in South Phoenix that that City claimed it owned, it didn’t, but I did not have the money to fight them and under your construction, I should have paid the City of Phoenix addition funds to knock down my building that they tore down while taking my property.

            Slaves were considered chattel, property, that fault lies with the Founders who kicked the can down the road rather than dealing with it in the original Constitution. However, since they are chattel, they fall under eminent domain. If the government wants them, the government pays for them. Hence, we all pay for them, North and South. Kings have been ransomed, why not slaves, if you want to think of it that way.

            1. Slavery should have been evolved out of existence though advocacy, promotions, boycotts and divestiture. Slaveholders and their industry should have been required to fund compassionate repatriation, for which they certainly had sufficient profits after 240 years of business, as their obsolete property could not meet the criterion in the Naturalization Act of 1802 that citizens be “…free white person(s)…” The slaveholders had no constitutional authority to dump 3 million illegal aliens on America.

              1. George – are you familiar with the term “land poor”? It means people have the land but no cash and that was actually the situation planters were in whether they had slaves or not. They had to wait for the cotton crop to come in and then depend on the price of cotton that year for their income. It is a dicey business. Sometimes the prices are high and you can buy stuff for the house and your wife and kids, etc. Sometimes the prices are down and you can barely put food on the table for everybody. Farming is not for the weak at heart.

                Let me see if I can find an analogy closer to home for you. I am the government. I suddenly declare all cars illegal. You not only will not drive your car, you will pay the towing company $5000 to tow it and have it destroyed (or shipped to China). This is your solution to the slavery problem being re-enacted today. Slaves were chattel, your car is chattel. And who knows if your car wants to go to China or be destroyed?

    3. Paul –

      Sounds like you either don’t know about Fort Sumpter, or else you consider all that a conspiracy theory.

      1. billmcwillilliams – I know a lot about Fort Sumter, where the troops moved unto an island fortress from another fort while waiting for supplies. Personally, I think states have the right to leave the Union, regardless of the reason and once they are out of the Union, all of their land is theirs again. That includes Fort Sumter. It was given many chances to surrender or leave the fort and they did not and since the supply boat/ship was on its way it is necessary to fire on them. I also know it took the Union forces 4 years to retake the fort.

        Did you know that the supposed founder of American baseball was in that fort when it was fired on? I did. Read Mary Chesnut’s Diary for an excellent account of the affair.

        1. Exactly. If one reads “Lincoln Unmasked” and “The Real Lincoln”, one would discover the unpleasant truth that ol’ honest Abe deliberately precipitated the attack on Ft. Sumter by SC merely to legitimize his war. Since many in the North were adamantly opposed to war with the South, he had no choice but to launch this horrible scheme His was a well-crafted plan to spark hostilities which launched a needless and destructive war nobody really wanted–except Abe and his big government Republican stooges, that is. And we built a monument to him. Why does Planet of the Apes come to mind?

      2. Perhaps you would attempt to rescind and abrogate the acts of secession by Catalonia, Britain in its Brexit, Scotland, Bangladesh, Pakistan, West Virginia and all the nations of the former Soviet Union. Secession is a natural and God-given right of all people that existed before government was established.

        1. Unlike the US, the constitutions of those countries prohibits secession. Secession is NOT prohibited in the US Constitution.

      3. Lincoln started an unconstitutional and war of Northern aggression against a sovereign foreign nation which was undeclared by Congress. Congress passed a “resolution” of nonsense as the Constitution does not preclude secession and, by omission, allows secession. The U.S. has no authority to declare war on itself. Congress had no quorum and could not declare an unconstitutional war.

  15. “Many voters are struggling to ignore the immorality in voting for a man like Moore in the face of multiple allegations of misconduct with young girls coming from almost a dozen women and an array of witnesses from neighbor to former colleagues to security officers.”
    ******************
    This is hyperbole and ignores an equal number of claim doubters, West Point classmates as well as lawyers, judges and longstanding friends who vouch for Moore’s character. It also flies in the face of that quaint old legal notion than one is punished for fairly decided upon facts not mere allegations, no matter how many claims there are. Ask the Duke lacrosse team or the brothers of Phi Kappa Psi at UVA about the validity of the “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” school of jurisprudence. It’s made them millions in civil damages claims from its leading proponent — the yellow journalists. As lawyers, we know better or at least we should.

    The facts we know here are that there are two allegations that could involve “immorality” (unless you want to contend that age of consent laws in Alabama are immoral, and that takes some hubris to substitute your judgment for the consensus of the good people of Alabama.) They are charges by Nelson and Coffman. The rest involve consensual relationships with “of age” women under the laws of Alabama. And all of those legal relationships have been denied by Moore save two and he denies any sexual congress with all of them. We on the blog have scrupulously detailed the holes in both “immoral” claims and a majority of Alabama voters seem to agree with us given Moore’s lead in almost all pre-election polling.

    Whether you like Moore’s jurisprudence or not (and I don’t) this is about something much bigger: it’s about the right of Alabamians to choose who represents them free from the self-righteous admonitions of the peanut gallery pundit class and their so-called journalist compadres who demonstrate almost daily that they know the absolute least about the candidate, the accusers and the voters.

    1. Mespo, the stalwart defender of the rights of the states to send whoever they want to the US Senate, without interference from the political chattering class. Why just the other day he was complaining about Chuckie Schumer pressuring Al Franken to resign, which deprived the people of Minnesota of being represented by the person they chose to represent them.

      1. Don de Drain,..
        The people of Minnesota chose to sent Franken to the Senate.
        They can’t force him to stay if he chooses to resign.
        Absent a cascade of more damaging, and substantiated, allegations, I don’t think he would have been ejected from the Senate.
        So Franken could have…and maybe still could….dig in his heels and keep his Senate seat, or announce that he would resign.
        If the voters in Minnesota have a problem with that, they can take it up with Franken.
        It’s his call.
        IMO, he either got fed up and decided ” who needs this?”, OR that there were even more damaging complaints against him that would surface.
        The latter may still happen…..his resignation may not prevent more accusations….but in that case, I think Franken would prefer to deal with the issue outside of the spotlight of his position in the Senate.

        1. T rump has da most accusers except for da Weinstein and Bill Cosby. His supporters call da women liars.

        2. It’s still only politics. Minnesota has a lib in waiting to replace Franken. The only thing that matters is the agenda (on either side).

  16. Cruz, Gohmert, King, Pence, and likely Moore (among others): the Christian Taliban keeps growing.

        1. Paul C. Schulte,…
          I don’t know about the atheism…maybe some members of Congress are, probably not publicly….but there is no shortage of High Priests and Priestesses of the Religious Left.
          “Frightening”….ooh, really scary.

        2. Paul C. Schulte,…
          I don’t know about the atheism…maybe some members of Congress are, probably not publicly….but there is no shortage of High Priests and Priestesses of the Religious Left.
          “Frightening”….ooh, really scary.

          1. Tom Nash – I do not think you can be a liberal and a Christian, even in a mega-church.

            1. Paul C. Schulte…
              -That’s a pretty narrow, exclusionary view of Christianity.
              My religious and spiritual advisor, Fr. Sarducci😉,is now in his 70s and semi-retired.
              I’ll run it by him.

              1. Tom Nash – with Fr. Sarducci as your spiritual advisor that explains so much. 😉 Say hi for me. 🙂

            2. Paul – how about Congregationalists? They have been focusing on issues and come down on the right side of progress IMO – abolition, sufferage, Civil Rights, gay marriage

                1. Paul C. Schulte,…
                  Fr. Sarducci’s brand of Catholicism ianything but organized.
                  So you may be a potential convert if you’re looking for a disorganized religious sect.

                2. Paul, I came to organized religion late in life – joined the Episcopal church in Vegas but when they chose an evil, unqualified woman as bishop I was done. Then I became a member of the Congregational church locallywhich lasted only 5 years as they became too PC. The final nail was the election – despite claiming to be open to dialog — they refused any discussion about HRC’s deeds and corruption.

                  I read widely from a variety of theologians – Catholic, Jewish, American Baptist, Buddhist, Celtic spirituality etc but will not join another church. One of my fav writers is Sam Keen.who left organized religion a long time ago.

                  Maybe I’m partly a neo transendentalist =)

                  1. Autumn – that sounds like a 6th level Laser Lotus from Community. I have no idea what you are describing. 🙂 However, I hope you have found peace with it.

                    2. Autumn – did you ever watch Community? Chevy Chase played the character who belonged to an off-shoot Buddhist organization that the others thought was a cult. We never did find out what a Laser Lotus was because no one in his group had ever risen to that level. 😉 But there is a funny episode where he claims to have been raised to that level and the rest of the group set him up.

                  2. Autumn,
                    Did you ever try the Methodists? The Methodist churches I have attended avoid politics, generally speaking (at least at the church itself), and focus on helping others. I do not fit in theologically exactly, but I like being with a community of people whose goal is to deepen their connection to God and to help others and to try to be good people.

                    I do not understand: “The final nail was the election – despite claiming to be open to dialog — they refused any discussion about HRC’s deeds and corruption.”

                    My church avoids political discussions or endorsements of any kind–mostly because people should not be told how to vote (I would be ticked if I ever felt like my pastor was directing me to vote a certain way), and, it can tear a congregation apart needlessly when the main goal of a church is helping the needy and being a place where people can worship God and become better people–not overtly influence an election.

            3. “I do not think you can be a liberal and a Christian”

              Why not?

              I have quite a few family members who are liberal and Christian.

              2. Prairie Rose – to be truly liberal one has to be either agnostic or atheistic. You can be a liberal Christian, the Pope falls into this category. Note to Catholic Church, do not elect another Jesuit as Pope,

                1. Paul,
                  “to be truly liberal one has to be either agnostic or atheistic.”

                  Why?

                  I would classify Thomas Jefferson as Liberal, but a nonconformist almost Christian. Perhaps our definitions of Christian do not align.

                  1. Prairie Rose – my only definition of Christian is that one needs to believe the Jesus is God. Other than that, you are on your own. 😉 Remember, I am agnostic. I believe in an Uncaused Cause, but not Jesus.

                    1. Paul,
                      “my only definition of Christian is that one needs to believe the Jesus is God”

                      There is our trouble. 🙂 Our definitions do not align.

                      My definition is that one believes in God and follows Jesus, using both Testaments as additional guides. The Bible is meant to be wrestled with, to advance and refine our understanding of what is good and just.

                      Micah 6:8
                      Mark 12:29-31
                      Luke 10: 27-37
                      Matthew 25:31-46

                    2. Prairie Rose – the God of the Old Testament is the God of Anger and Vengeance. The God of the New Testament is the God of Peace and Joy. I believe in neither, but I gave you my definition.

                    3. Paul,
                      “the God of the Old Testament is the God of Anger and Vengeance. The God of the New Testament is the God of Peace and Joy”

                      Our understandings and perspectives of the different Testaments is very different. I do not think it boils down in this way so easily.

                      I do not understand what you mean by “I believe in neither”. Do you disagree with what both state as a whole, in part? Do you disagree with them literally or metaphorically?

                    5. Prairie Rose and Paul C. Schulte,..
                      David Steinberg’s sermons may be of interest to both of you.
                      For his take on biblical ( especially Old Testament) theology.
                      It may not clarify Paul’s position, but Steinberg’s perspective is interesting in any case.

                    7. Paul,
                      “Prairie Rose – yes”
                      I take it you answer ‘yes’ to all–you disagree with the Bible in its entirety–in whole and in part, and, you disagree with it both literally and metaphorically. Am I correct?

                      So, I am curious as to why you disagree with it so completely. With what do you disagree?

                    8. Prairie Rose – I taught Comparative Religions, do you really want to get into a long-winded debate with me over the Bible? 😉

                    11. Paul,
                      “Prairie Rose – I taught Comparative Religions, do you really want to get into a long-winded debate with me over the Bible? ”

                      I am not trying to debate. I am curious about your perspective.

                    12. Tom,
                      “I think he held the record fof the most appearances on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show.”

                      I was too young to stay up late enough to watch Johnny Carson. 😉

                      Thank you for the clarification.

                  2. Prairie Rose…Audios, and maybe videos, of Steinberg’s short sermons are easily found on the internet.
                    I know he covers Moses, Jonah and the Whale, and Lot.

                    1. Prairie Rose….No…Actually, Steinberg is a comedian who did hilarious takes on Old Testament stories.
                      I think he held the record fof the most appearances on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show.

        3. Paul –

          In which state or states do you believe the “atheist” Taliban are the most active?

          1. billmcwilliams – I know this is not a state but I would posit Washington, D.C. and the two states that surround it, Maryland and Virginia.

  17. The Founders never intended for the “poor” or women to vote (the 19th proves that).

    Freed slaves must have been deported by law as their legal status changed from “property” to “illegal alien” upon the issuance of the unconstitutional “Emancipation Proclamation” (to issue a proclamation required rebellion or insurrection – no authority is provided for proclamation during constitutional secession) and the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802 required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…”

    Everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional, from an undeclared war of Northern aggression against a sovereign foreign nation, not one of “common defence,” to the Emancipation Proclamation and the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Lincoln should not have been allowed to kill 1 million Americans, he should have been impeached and convicted. He could not be impeached as he was a despotic, tyrannical dictator. Though Lincoln was elected, the Supreme Court should have upheld the Constitution against him and the legislative branch should have impeached and convicted him.

    Lincoln should have never had successors who hastily rammed through the “Reconstruction Amendments” without a quorum, without a proper ratification assessment and under the duress of post-war military occupation. That brutal, oppressive and tyrannical environment is not exactly what the Founders envisioned for governance.

    If Judge Roy Moore et al. can be convicted 40 years on for uncharged and unlitigated allegations, the “Reconstruction Amendments” can be rescinded and corrective action can be imposed now.

    Like the 18th Amendment, which was repealed by the 21st, the glaring deleterious effects of the 19th Amendment are grounds for immediate repeal, beginning with the fact that the American birthrate is in a death spiral, the American population is imported and Americans will be diluted out of existence in a century or two. American has become a hysterical and incoherent nation as has been widely exhibited of late.

    Judge Roy Moore may be onto something.

    1. Abraham Lincoln –

      “If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”

    2. Actually, America will undergo addition by subtraction when those who’s outdated picture of what a “Real Merican” looks like move on to the next plane.

      This is to “field slaves don’t belong in the house” georgie

      1. Marky Mark Mark – field slaves are not meant to be in the house, just like your mother doesn’t like you coming upstairs when she has male visitors. Certain lines are not meant to be crossed. Field slaves are covered with dirt, etc. and would have to be cleaned up before they could enter the house. In those days it took a team of people to keep the house clean and you don’t want someone tracking in dirt or mud, that is just extra work.

        What was your undergrad major in college? Gender studies? I cannot believe how much you do not know.

        1. So that’s what you read like when you get mean. But why no literary reference for the Yo Mama jibe???

  18. I would support Moore on the 16th and 17th as the first was also first and successful attempt to control the country through economics this one the income tax and the 17th began the dismantling of the checks and balances system.

    i am going to leave the Lincoln and later amendments alone as Lincoln was a two edge sword. Besides Jackson the second of the imperial presidencies later emulated by Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Carter, Clinton and Obama and in that respect I would have to agree with Moore. But not on the other Lincoln Amendments.

    On the subject of Line of Succession.and it’s follow on the Act of Succession it’s wrongly putting the Cabinet Secetaries in the line they received zero votesand are needed during any critical changeover. It wrongly put the Speaker ahead of the President Protempore of the Senate. Any Senator receives more votes than any Representtive and with the exception pehaps of Nevada represents a larger area. However to present coup d’etat the succession should be limited to those of the same party for the remainder of the term.

    I don’t reject the comment out of hand it sounds rather like a term paper what if project and in many ways. Something to provide food for thought.

    SOME of the later amendments certainly help not hinder the concepts of Imperial Presidency/Foruth Branch of Government/Deep State, movement towards a one party system,

    But there is are two amendment that are needed.

    Any President who willfully ignores the Constitution especially the 9th and 10th Amendments will be immediately removed from office and banned from holding further public office.

    No branch of goverenment may assume or be awarded the powers of the other two branches of government.

    2. The last few decades have shown Congress willfully passing its Constitutional responsibilities to the President. There are probably many theories, but I believe it’s bc legislators find it easy to be re-elected when they can’t be accountable for their decisions (by not making decisions). The House and Senate have become careers for politicians. That’s why we need an amendment for term limits. It will do no good to remove the President for Constitutional violations when the Congress doesn’t have the will to enforce it.

      1. Remember Newt’s “Contract with America?” Newt and the Republican Congress achieved every item on the list except one, being term limits. Gee, I wonder why?

      2. I’ll wager you won’t much like the Senate’s “work” after the midterm elections “shake that place up.”

        This is to “the guy whose name is so secret he can’t use a word” bracketeer

        1. Marky Mark Mark – the Democrats have the most seats at risk, so I would not lay any bets yet.

Comments are closed.