Yes, wars are different but still politics. The Glorious Revolution was a rebellion but not much of a war. My point is that rule of law can be suspended for a duration and returned to.

I do think we are polarized between those who believe in limited government and those who believe in unlimited government and we won’t find common ground.

The only thing the grassroots can do is to continue to push hard on the elites. But no expectations come with this. In fact Rodham may well be the next President and the country will suffer greatly as a result.

As Churchill said:

“Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

I said on the equality side of it, that it is essential to a woman’s equality with man that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Our nation became less concerned with foundations, more influenced by European Marxism, and sought out the Babylonian cry for feminism among women, and later brought along men, who all reject God. Suddenly, the use of the once sacred mortar of our foundations of God, Constitution and iron-clad families of strength, were abandoned to pursue anti-godly endeavors and selfishly built altars of sin.

if you read Toward a Feminist Theory of the State and Catherine Mckinnon a constitutional lawyer, she wants to remove the first amendment as it allows for pornography… another group of feminists thinks its ok to bring prostitutes to school on days to show kids career choices. twerking a professional thing i guess

but think of when the colleges went to crap. .pre 1968 or post feminims?

Her 1993 book, Only Words, proselytised for this view, opposing the US constitution’s first amendment interpretation of pornography as protected speech. MacKinnon rather considered it hate speech, one that she and Dworkin defined as “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words”, but also one with real power – notably, to cause the rape and murder of women.

That which destroys the order in favor of communism is put forth, other women are not real women, families should not exist, men should be exterminated till there are only a few, and on and on.

the vast majoirty of women have no idea of the tenets and goals of what they support… even if they dont support it overtly, they support it by not opposing it

Toward a Feminist Theory of the State is a 1989 book about feminist political theory by Catharine MacKinnon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toward_a_Feminist_Theory_of_the_State

MacKinnon takes Marxism as the theory’s point of departure….Marxism and feminism provide accounts of the way social arrangements of patterned and cumulative disparity can be internally rational and systematic yet unjust. Both are theories of power, its social derivations and its maldistribution. Both are theories of social inequality. In unequal societies, gender and with it sexual desire and kinship structures, like value and with it acquisitiveness and the forms of property ownership, are considered presocial, part of the natural world, primordial or magical or aboriginal. As Marxism exposes value as social creation, feminism exposes desire as socially relational, internally necessary to unequal social orders but historically contingent

if your not against it your for it

Demographics and the 2016 Election Scenarios
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/26/demographics_and_the_2016_election_scenarios.html

” DonS Says:
December 30th, 2015 at 12:53 pm

DNW, we have drifted away from a truly constitutional system, in large degree starting in the ’30s. But now we see a much greater break down of rule of law, due to the federal government and Obama administration. The media and educational system are a large part of the problem but in the final analysis the culture is the deciding factor.”

Yes, I agree. Some people are apparently not fitted by either temperament or capacity, to enjoy (in a kind of technical sense) self-government.

That I don’t guess is the live question. The question is whether those who might be, can face it, and figure out how to deal with it so as to assure the best possible outcome for all involved.

Assuming of course, an outcome witha distributive benefit is in fact possible.

Illiberals obviously don’t believe it is. Liberty anywhere, is to them, injustice everywhere, and they cannot abide it. That is why it is so necessary for them to import a replacement population for the “Neanderthals” they see here.

” DonS Says:
December 30th, 2015 at 12:47 pm

The Civil War was an example of a temporary elimination of the Constitution. The Texas war of independence, the American Revolution, and the Glorious Revolution were similar events where rule of law was re-established after non-constitutional means were applied.”

Without commenting on the possible interpretive details and implications, I think it is worth pointing out that what kind of associative predicate is assumed to exist outside of an explicitly constitutional contract differs significantly both among and within conservative and illiberal groupings.

Conservative Christians and leftists both seem to imagine that some kind of common humanity moral obligation – and one not just a bare bones negative rights deduction from natural law implications. but one entailing obligations of intra-specific support and “solidarity” (hack and spit) – somehow continues to exist.

Break the contract and, mirabile dictu, we still have a contract!

Ah, that is when they find it convenient, of course. Otherwise they would be happy to massacre you too.

Wars are wars, which is a different beast entirely; it is understand that actual hot wars sometimes require suspension of certain aspects of due process. Nor was “the Constitution” “eliminated” during the Civil War, not by a longshot. Same for the wars of independence (and of course, there was no Constitution during the American Revolution).

Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus (to which I assume you are referring) was specific to the war, and meant to be limited to it. However, even Lincoln realized that he had unleashed a beast (albeit a limited one) that could be very dangerous:

In the months before he was assassinated, Lincoln found, to his surprise, that he was unable to convince Missouri’s Republican leaders–who had grown accustomed to their newfound powers–to put an end to martial law in the state. The lesson he learned, historians say, may have been a simple one: “It is much easier,” says Eric Foner, a professor of history at Columbia University, “to put these restrictions in place than it is to stop them.”

When the war started, there was little doubt in Lincoln’s mind that his suspension of civil liberties was both necessary and constitutional. His political opponents may have disagreed, but facing a full-fledged insurrection in the South and with the loyalty of Maryland, the state between Washington, D.C., and the rest of the Union, wavering, Lincoln had grounds to worry that the nation’s capital was in real danger.

Here’s the power of the Constitution under which Lincoln believed he was acting:

Legally, Lincoln felt he was on firm ground. The Constitution, after all, explicitly grants the government the power to suspend habeas corpus “in cases of rebellion or invasion,” though it is not clear on whether this power resides with Congress or the president. In either case, before the war was over, the Union would face both rebellion and invasion, and in 1863, Congress passed a law, the Habeas Corpus Indemnity Act, in support of Lincoln.

Though he worried privately that these new powers might be misused, Lincoln publicly scoffed at the notion…

It was an actual Civil War (rebellion), which—rhetoric on blogs to the contrary—we are not facing now. Plus, there were grave dangers in Lincoln’s doing what he did, and the outcome could have gone otherwise, had more tyrannically inclined people been in charge.