He keeps us young.

The Constitution of the United States of America is not comical in any way, unless you are a (sorry, Michael Savage) Red Diaper Doper Baby.

LOL! I wish him dead and he takes the opportunity to brag about something he couldn't possibly be doing while also being a professor. You see, I live in Hebron KY, home of the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG). Airlines don't hire part time pilots. The neighbors I talked about in the past (the two hot and barely legal teens and their MILF of a mom) have a father and husband who used to fly for Delta and now flies for NetJets. I know a little something about the airline industry with regards to pilots and how much dedication is involved on a weekly basis just to keep your commercial FAA certification for jet aircraft and how you get and keep that certification on specific models of aircraft. It's a lot more than just the equivalent of having a trucker's CDL for an airplane. You can fly small tourist charters part time, but airlines require dedication and you can't just hop behind the wheel of a 707 just because you want a few extra hours pay.

Draugnar, you of all people should be able to detect sarcasm. I'm not an airline pilot!!!! Just a commercial pilot who does occasional charters.

ever do a great charter?

So you'd rather be flippant than respond to the death wish? Intersting fool. Oh, and you finally admit you are diplofool...

I think that this whole thread about his new political beliefs was an admission to be the late, great diplomat1824. The_Master_Warrior never had a thread like this before that I'm aware of.

Could you give us a link to other Ultranationalist Constitutionalists like yourself? Surely these people have a website at least outlining their views. This would go a ways to prove that you're not just putting words you like the sound of together and calling it an ideology.

www.constitutionparty.com

>Are you asking my opinions, or what?

Yes, I'm asking you your opinions. That's why I wrote

>>Do you agree with these positions?

How can you defend your views if I don't attack them? and how can I attack them if I don't know what they are?

the draft, in-country checkpoints, secret spending, or starting a war without Congress' approval...

Let's see.

Draft: Only in times of Congress-approved formal declarations of war.
Secret Spending: Citizens have a right to know what the government spends money on. However, the government does not have to fully elaborate on the nature of the spending if it is an issue of national security.
War w/o Congress' consent: No. Except when America is attacked and lives would be saved by an immediate counterattack, which may have to occur before Congress can assemble and vote.

@Draugnar: "LOL! I wish him dead and he takes the opportunity to brag about something he couldn't possibly be doing while also being a professor. You see, I live in Hebron KY, home of the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG). Airlines don't hire part time pilots. The neighbors I talked about in the past (the two hot and barely legal teens and their MILF of a mom) have a father and husband who used to fly for Delta and now flies for NetJets. I know a little something about the airline industry with regards to pilots and how much dedication is involved on a weekly basis just to keep your commercial FAA certification for jet aircraft and how you get and keep that certification on specific models of aircraft. It's a lot more than just the equivalent of having a trucker's CDL for an airplane. You can fly small tourist charters part time, but airlines require dedication and you can't just hop behind the wheel of a 707 just because you want a few extra hours pay"

How do you therefore explain the fact that Bruce Dickinson, lead singer of Iron Maiden, spends months on end touring with one of the world's biggest bands, yet is also a licensed commercial pilot and occasionally flies charter flights (mostly in Boeing 757's) in his spare time?

If you don't believe me see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_dickinson
- scroll down to the "Personal Life" section.

On the first two, it looks to me like loyal adherence to the text of the Constitution takes second place to national security.

I should quote the relevant text. From the 13th Amendment:
‘[No] involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.’
On the face of it, that would seem to forbid the draft (except for convicts, and even then it would have to part of the law before the crime was committed, to avoid being ex post facto), although the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise.

And from Article I, Section 9:
‘No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.’
That might be satisfied by a bill like ‘So-and-so many billions is appropriated to the DoD to spend on defense.’ and a report from the DoD that says ‘Yep, we spent all of the money on defense, you betcha.’, but the Constitution Party has interpreted it more strictly for regulatory agencies. So why not for the military too?

Actually, the CP has a pretty good position on the military, compared to the big two parties. Despite the nonsense in their platform about women in combat or the Panama Canal, that is all overruled by the line about not attacking other countries.

I should probably attack their ‘Family’ platform, which has no support whatsoever from the Constitution. But you haven't really said anything to suggest that you agree with that; it's not ultranationalist either.

04:22 AM "You're right. It is incorrect. Your inferior beliefs have never known true victory, so you could not possibly suffer defeat."

04:22 AM "Irrational posts will be ignored. "

Correct me if i'm wrong, I think you meant that as an instruction.

It should be phrased "Irrational posts should be ignored" or perhaps you meant to improve the position of your arguement by saying "Please ignore the irrational posts which are made by myself or my opposition".

Then again that might leave you without any position at all. (or at most one you have asked us to ignore) Not that wouldn't make any sense... you must have meant it as a prophecy. "Irrational posts will be ignored." but i fear not ignored by everyone, you'e amusing some people far too much for them to ignore you completely...

"On the face of it, that would seem to forbid the draft"

Military personnel are paid :teeeeeeeeeach:

I have this weird feeling...

Hey I'm actually seriously curious, I've always wondered this.

What makes us think the Constitution is like the legal Bible or something? Don't you think it has flaws? Like a lot of flaws?

I haven't seen a better system yet. Like, all the proposals are so hilariously bad that they actually reinforce the view that the Constitution is divine.

lol

it depends on the meaning: involuntary is the opposite of voluntary, sure, but is that what the wording means? servitude may be the equivalent of slavery, (or working without pay, which i suppose voluntary work is)

but servitude could be interpreted as any service, and voluntary as choosing to do it, (as it has nothing to do with pay really, the word means volunteering to do something, whether it is paid or not.)

Also the constitution specifies how it is to be admended, right? so changing the constitution to suit the issues of the day is entirely constitutional.

Actually, the CP can school me on the draft issue. Since nobody these days is born into slavery, the 13th Amendment is not needed to forbid the draft; the 5th Amendment already applies.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Conscription

So, wait, the CP believes that the 13th Amendment is superfluous?

I think the Constitution of the United States is one of, if not the best defining documents of any government I've studied (though on paper the Soviet Constitution has a lot to recommend it, too bad it was more or less ignored in practice).

that being said I do think there are areas in which it could be improved (which clearly a lot of other people have as well since it's been amended 27 times).

For example, I would actually like to see longer terms for Presidents (6 years seems about right to me), and I'd consider having slightly longer terms for members of the House of Representatives, though I'd still want them to have relatively short terms, maybe 3ish years? I just feel like these days they're in full time campaigning mode.

PS that was in response to Thucy's question.

I said that I agree with most of their views. Since "most" is not a relative term, I will elaborate. Out of all of the political parties in the US, I share the most views with the CP.

>So, wait, the CP believes that the 13th Amendment is superfluous?

For the purpose of forbidding the draft, yes. The 5th Amendment already does that, as I should have remembered.

Actually, it is almost entirely superfluous now. Even before the Civil War, the courts had ruled ‘Once free, always free.’; it was no longer acceptable to catch slaves in the wild, as it were. The amendment was necessary at the time, but if it were repealed now, then that wouldn't enslave anybody.

However, since slavery does still exist in a few other places in the world, it does potentially have some effect. When slaves are brought to the U.S., they will be freed if their masters get caught. The 13th Amendment itself isn't needed for that, since statutory law covers it, but if you repealed the amendment *and* those laws, then we might be in trouble.

In 1846, Lysander Spooner (abolitionist and constitutionalist) made the argument that slavery did not exist under natural law, and the Constitution's tacit acceptance of it was not sufficient to establish it. If you buy his arguments, then the 13th Amendment was never needed. (Unfortunately, the courts did not buy his arguments, so in practice the amendment was needed.)

Jamiet99uk

It's easy to explain... It's a UK charter company. They don't fall under FAA rules as they aren't in America. And, even if they were, charter pilot rules are different than regular service airlines, which was the now claimed to be sarcastic statement made by Diplofool. And I can assume he was referring to flying in the US for a US airline because this thread is about the US Constitution and he has claimed, in the past, to be a tenured professor ata major US university.

To be fair, he claimed to be a professor at a small Christian college, if memory serves. I remember specifically asking if he taught at the Big Ten, and he said no.

At any rate, this "new" ideology doesn't seem much different from his old one, apart that "RNC forever" has turned into "CPNC forever." Like many people on the right, the wishy-washy platform and broken promises of the Republican Party has gotten him very mad, and he's mad enough to change to this Constitution Party. This is the same diplomat1824 we know and love, just with a different self-identification.

The main thing that pisses me off about him is that he claims to be older than me when he is actually younger. I respect my elders, and some that are younger than I, but if you're younger you have to earn it. The fact that he is pretending he is old enough that he just "deserves" my respect pisses me off, because not only is he younger, he is worthy of no respect whatsoever.

If you're going to automatically give your respect to people older than you, while you insist that people younger than you must earn your respect, then you really have to expect that people younger than you who want your respect will lie to you about their ages.

"broken promises of the Republican Party"
What broken promises?
Only the Demoncrats break promises. Like "We won't raise taxes on the middle class" and "We'll provide free healthcare for everyone" and "We'll cut the deficit"

Which taxes did they raise on the middle class?
How is it they aren't cutting the deficit. The healthcare plan on the table (that was "broken promise number two") would actually reduce, or, if you like, CUT the deficit. So.... I'm just curious what you mean when you say broken promises. How do you define broken, exactly?