It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[P@triot]

You can't. Federal law trumps local law. So it really doesn't matter what you do locally. Just look at how they illegally forced gay marriage on the American people. The federal government has no authority over marriage - and yet once again they violate the law and assume authority over it.

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution,and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to1835.

In mcculloch v. maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action.

Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
supremacy clause

You're sure to disagree that expanding the liberty of gay and lesbian couples to marry is not necessary nor is it proper - but that's what bigots and callous people do, and without government to intervene, chaos would result.

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

Man is that fall down hilarious. Clearly you have no idea who John Marshall was (hint: he was such a big government, expand the powers of the federal government proponent that he has been referred to as "probably the greatest Hamiltonian constitutionalist after Hamilton himself").

And let me guess...you have no idea where Alexander Hamilton stood on government and the Constitution (another hint: he was the mortal enemy of Thomas Jefferson because he wanted to ignore the U.S. Constitution and expand the powers of the federal government far beyond what the Constitution permits).

Seriously sparky - you might want to try just a little research before commenting in the future. This is why history is so important and why liberals need to stop rejecting it. Just saying sparky...

 

[P@triot]

Did the resistance start? I was out for a while, what did I miss?

Well for staters....the U.S. Constitution (unfortunately).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

IF one of you Bolsheviks were to ever read the document, you may find that the answers are embedded. Now I grant that you would be purged from the party for such heresy, but still....

The answer is simple, search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present.

How do we know this? (WARNING: Constitution Follows, democrats may suffer severe burns in reaction!)

Simple, the Constitution says so;

{"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."}

Not George Soros, your owner. Not Debbie Shultz, the leader of your filthy party, not the unelected dictators of the SCOTUS, but the actual document itself, which I am convinced no forum leftist has ever read.

Yeah, your conspiracy babble about Soros and 'Shultz' isn't the constitutional definition of anything.

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution

I've done this multiple times already. The fact that you pretend like I haven't because you cannot formulate a new argument for why you get to ignore the U.S. Constitution and push your fascist ideology on others doesn't change the reality.

This is as idiotic as the thread premise, if not more so.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, not as perceived by wrongheaded conservative reactionaries, ignorant libertarians, and TPM nitwits.

 

[Faun]

Could have been but weren't. Instead, many of the Branch Davidians decided to hold up inside that compound indefinitely; hoping the law would just walk away. Even worse for them, they kept their own children in danger. The parents are to blame for their childrens' deaths.

Why didnt they arrest Koresh when he made oneir e of his frequent trips to the hardware store?

Irrelevant, they didn't. Koresh and his followers still holed up inside their compound in defiance of arrest warrants. They then torched their own compound and killed their own children when law enforcement finally moved in to root them out. The parents of those kids are to blame for their deaths, not the government.

What a load of horseshit.
They could have arrested Koresh during one of his many trips to town.
They blew it and kids died because of it.
And no the branch davidians didnt set the fire it was caused by the tear gas canisters,just like in the Chris Dorner stand off.
They know these canisters will start a fire.

Bullshit. The Davidians themselves were recorded saying they were dousing the compound with Coleman fuel before setting it on fire themselves. Spontaneous fires ignited in three separate locations around the compound. It was a mass suicide. Some of the bodies recovered were found to have died by gunshot wounds. Some of them shot themselves rather than die by fire. If it wasn't suicide, they would have fled the compound when the fires started, they wouldn't have stayed inside and committed suicide. They would have gotten their children out. It was a mass suicide. Deal with it.

Betcha your nose was totally out of joint about the "Hands Up -- Don't Shoot" fantasy in St. Louis -- wasn't it?
You probably have SITUATIONAL problems with state Authority.. And view govt over-use of force as some kind of really useful tool to use against people you DON'T like.

Let's test your consistency here. Tell me how much you APPROVE of this BOMBING of an entire black neighborhood to end a "stand-off"... Hope you've heard of it..

25 Years Ago: Philadelphia Police Bombs MOVE Headquarters Killing 11, Destroying 65 Homes | Democracy Now!

Regarding Michael Brown... when the story broke, I thought the cop was wrong based in the limited information released. With all the information known now, Wilson acted appropriately.

As far as Philadelphia... I don't know enough about to to render an opinion.

Waco, I followed closely.

 

[Faun]

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

Once again....thank you for proving my point for me. The federal government cannot deny someone marriage (gay or otherwise). But they also can't force it on the American people. They have no authority over it so they have to stay out of it.

You either don't comprehend what you are reading here or you are desperately grasping at straws. Either way, with each post your simply supporting what I've already proven to be true.

Please post an example of two men or two women taken by the state and forced to marry. Otherwise, STFU.

Wow....taking nonsensical to a whole new level I see. The issue is not taking people and forcing them to marry - the issue is forcing all states to recognize gay marriage. The federal government has no such authority. Not only have we already proven that by marriage not being one of the 18 enumerated powers, but we can further prove it by a look at the 10th Amendment:

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.

Sorry junior - but once again this is cut & dry. It could not be any more clear. It is illegal for the federal government to force the states to do anything when it comes to marriage. Furthermore, the voters of each individual state have the right to choose whether or not to recognize gay marriage. If the voters of New York do - so be it. If the voters of Oklahoma do not - so be it. That's the entire point of the United States. 50 individual states, controlled by the people, united only in 18 specific, enumerated powers.

Game. Set. Match. Thanks for playing.

You're really too demented to render lucid opinion on the Constitution. Not only is the Judiciary not limited to cases pertaining to the enumerated powers, as you ridiculously assert; but the Judiciary absolutely has the authority to decide if plaintiffs' Constitutional rights are being infringed upon by state law. This was the case with Obergefell.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution,and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to1835.

In mcculloch v. maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action.

Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."
supremacy clause

You're sure to disagree that expanding the liberty of gay and lesbian couples to marry is not necessary nor is it proper - but that's what bigots and callous people do, and without government to intervene, chaos would result.

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

Man is that fall down hilarious. Clearly you have no idea who John Marshall was (hint: he was such a big government, expand the powers of the federal government proponent that he has been referred to as "probably the greatest Hamiltonian constitutionalist after Hamilton himself").

And let me guess...you have no idea where Alexander Hamilton stood on government and the Constitution (another hint: he was the mortal enemy of Thomas Jefferson because he wanted to ignore the U.S. Constitution and expand the powers of the federal government far beyond what the Constitution permits).

Seriously sparky - you might want to try just a little research before commenting in the future. This is why history is so important and why liberals need to stop rejecting it. Just saying sparky...

“…beyond what the Constitution permits…”

lol

You can’t be serious, this is ignorant nonsense; Hamilton sought to do no such thing.

The courts determine what the Constitution permits, consistent with its case law, not you and other rightwing dullards.

 

[P@triot]

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

Man is that fall down hilarious. Clearly you have no idea who John Marshall was (hint: he was such a big government, expand the powers of the federal government proponent that he has been referred to as "probably the greatest Hamiltonian constitutionalist after Hamilton himself").

And let me guess...you have no idea where Alexander Hamilton stood on government and the Constitution (another hint: he was the mortal enemy of Thomas Jefferson because he wanted to ignore the U.S. Constitution and expand the powers of the federal government far beyond what the Constitution permits).

Seriously sparky - you might want to try just a little research before commenting in the future. This is why history is so important and why liberals need to stop rejecting it. Just saying sparky...

“…beyond what the Constitution permits…”

lol

You can’t be serious, this is ignorant nonsense; Hamilton sought to do no such thing.

The courts determine what the Constitution permits, consistent with its case law, not you and other rightwing dullards.

"The courts determine what the Constitution permits" LMAO!!!! They do, uh? Please cite the exact text of the Constitution which grants the Supreme Court the power to "interpret" the Constitution itself?

Good luck!

 

[Faun]

Linking it is easy. Understanding it it is above your paygrade.

The first step to understanding is actually reading it, which you have never done.

Of course I have. You're insane to think you know the answer to that better than I.

Lord Soros tells you what you think, and that's the end of it.

Of course I don't; and again, you're nuts to think you know the answer to that too better than I.

Not many people throw in the towel as easily as you just did. But telling people what they've experienced is certainly one quick way to accomplish that.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why didnt they arrest Koresh when he made oneir e of his frequent trips to the hardware store?

Irrelevant, they didn't. Koresh and his followers still holed up inside their compound in defiance of arrest warrants. They then torched their own compound and killed their own children when law enforcement finally moved in to root them out. The parents of those kids are to blame for their deaths, not the government.

What a load of horseshit.
They could have arrested Koresh during one of his many trips to town.
They blew it and kids died because of it.
And no the branch davidians didnt set the fire it was caused by the tear gas canisters,just like in the Chris Dorner stand off.
They know these canisters will start a fire.

Bullshit. The Davidians themselves were recorded saying they were dousing the compound with Coleman fuel before setting it on fire themselves. Spontaneous fires ignited in three separate locations around the compound. It was a mass suicide. Some of the bodies recovered were found to have died by gunshot wounds. Some of them shot themselves rather than die by fire. If it wasn't suicide, they would have fled the compound when the fires started, they wouldn't have stayed inside and committed suicide. They would have gotten their children out. It was a mass suicide. Deal with it.

And you have Janet Reno stating that if she had KNOWN the Davidians were spreading fuel -- she would have STOPPED the assault. Testimonies vary as to what was actually heard. But either they KNEW the Davidians were spreading fuel and lobbed those incendiary devices ANYWAY or they never heard anything of the sort -- they staged a millitary style attack on civilians without any regard for providing an evac or safety plan.. You love yourself some military justice ---- don't ya???

The FBI was recording the Davidians and their conversation about dousing their own compound with Coleman fuel was happening as law enforcement was tearing down walls and firing tear gas. There's no evidence I'm aware of that Janet Reno was listening live as they carried out their own demise.

So all you have is the word of the killers?
If it was the cops you wouldnt believe em.

 

[P@triot]

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

IF one of you Bolsheviks were to ever read the document, you may find that the answers are embedded. Now I grant that you would be purged from the party for such heresy, but still....

The answer is simple, search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present.

How do we know this? (WARNING: Constitution Follows, democrats may suffer severe burns in reaction!)

Simple, the Constitution says so;

{"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."}

Not George Soros, your owner. Not Debbie Shultz, the leader of your filthy party, not the unelected dictators of the SCOTUS, but the actual document itself, which I am convinced no forum leftist has ever read.

Yeah, your conspiracy babble about Soros and 'Shultz' isn't the constitutional definition of anything.

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution

I've done this multiple times already. The fact that you pretend like I haven't because you cannot formulate a new argument for why you get to ignore the U.S. Constitution and push your fascist ideology on others doesn't change the reality.

This is as idiotic as the thread premise, if not more so.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, not as perceived by wrongheaded conservative reactionaries, ignorant libertarians, and TPM nitwits.

This is astoundingly ignorant - even by your standards. The Constitution says exactly what it says, is written in black & white, and not even open to being subjected to "case law". That is an undeniable, indisputable, fact.

Sorry junior, but you lose. I know you're desperate to find a way around the U.S. Constitution but your lies aren't going to do it no matter how hard you try.

 

[Faun]

Irrelevant, they didn't. Koresh and his followers still holed up inside their compound in defiance of arrest warrants. They then torched their own compound and killed their own children when law enforcement finally moved in to root them out. The parents of those kids are to blame for their deaths, not the government.

What a load of horseshit.
They could have arrested Koresh during one of his many trips to town.
They blew it and kids died because of it.
And no the branch davidians didnt set the fire it was caused by the tear gas canisters,just like in the Chris Dorner stand off.
They know these canisters will start a fire.

Bullshit. The Davidians themselves were recorded saying they were dousing the compound with Coleman fuel before setting it on fire themselves. Spontaneous fires ignited in three separate locations around the compound. It was a mass suicide. Some of the bodies recovered were found to have died by gunshot wounds. Some of them shot themselves rather than die by fire. If it wasn't suicide, they would have fled the compound when the fires started, they wouldn't have stayed inside and committed suicide. They would have gotten their children out. It was a mass suicide. Deal with it.

And you have Janet Reno stating that if she had KNOWN the Davidians were spreading fuel -- she would have STOPPED the assault. Testimonies vary as to what was actually heard. But either they KNEW the Davidians were spreading fuel and lobbed those incendiary devices ANYWAY or they never heard anything of the sort -- they staged a millitary style attack on civilians without any regard for providing an evac or safety plan.. You love yourself some military justice ---- don't ya???

The FBI was recording the Davidians and their conversation about dousing their own compound with Coleman fuel was happening as law enforcement was tearing down walls and firing tear gas. There's no evidence I'm aware of that Janet Reno was listening live as they carried out their own demise.

So all you have is the word of the killers?
If it was the cops you wouldnt believe em.

Yes, the word of the killers being the Davidians themselves. I heard the audio where they were discussing dousing their own compound with fuel.

It was a mass suicide.

 

[Contumacious]

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

Man is that fall down hilarious. Clearly you have no idea who John Marshall was (hint: he was such a big government, expand the powers of the federal government proponent that he has been referred to as "probably the greatest Hamiltonian constitutionalist after Hamilton himself").

And let me guess...you have no idea where Alexander Hamilton stood on government and the Constitution (another hint: he was the mortal enemy of Thomas Jefferson because he wanted to ignore the U.S. Constitution and expand the powers of the federal government far beyond what the Constitution permits).

Seriously sparky - you might want to try just a little research before commenting in the future. This is why history is so important and why liberals need to stop rejecting it. Just saying sparky...

“…beyond what the Constitution permits…”

lol

You can’t be serious, this is ignorant nonsense; Hamilton sought to do no such thing.

The courts determine what the Constitution permits, consistent with its case law, not you and other rightwing dullards.

Is a court populated by fascists, socialists and state supremacists still a court?


.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why didnt they arrest Koresh when he made oneir e of his frequent trips to the hardware store?

Irrelevant, they didn't. Koresh and his followers still holed up inside their compound in defiance of arrest warrants. They then torched their own compound and killed their own children when law enforcement finally moved in to root them out. The parents of those kids are to blame for their deaths, not the government.

What a load of horseshit.
They could have arrested Koresh during one of his many trips to town.
They blew it and kids died because of it.
And no the branch davidians didnt set the fire it was caused by the tear gas canisters,just like in the Chris Dorner stand off.
They know these canisters will start a fire.

Bullshit. The Davidians themselves were recorded saying they were dousing the compound with Coleman fuel before setting it on fire themselves. Spontaneous fires ignited in three separate locations around the compound. It was a mass suicide. Some of the bodies recovered were found to have died by gunshot wounds. Some of them shot themselves rather than die by fire. If it wasn't suicide, they would have fled the compound when the fires started, they wouldn't have stayed inside and committed suicide. They would have gotten their children out. It was a mass suicide. Deal with it.

Betcha your nose was totally out of joint about the "Hands Up -- Don't Shoot" fantasy in St. Louis -- wasn't it?
You probably have SITUATIONAL problems with state Authority.. And view govt over-use of force as some kind of really useful tool to use against people you DON'T like.

Let's test your consistency here. Tell me how much you APPROVE of this BOMBING of an entire black neighborhood to end a "stand-off"... Hope you've heard of it..

25 Years Ago: Philadelphia Police Bombs MOVE Headquarters Killing 11, Destroying 65 Homes | Democracy Now!

Regarding Michael Brown... when the story broke, I thought the cop was wrong based in the limited information released. With all the information known now, Wilson acted appropriately.

As far as Philadelphia... I don't know enough about to to render an opinion.

Waco, I followed closely.

Well NOW that you KNOW they bombed out an entire black neighborhood in Philadelphia -- you're saying you have "NO OPINION" on that over-use of force? Perhaps you OUGHT to know about it. Wasn't a fringe religious group that time -- you MIGHT find an ounce of outrage. OR ------------------ maybe not..

Not liking the fact you didn't know about it or don't want to read some about it..
Seems to me -- that might cause your head to explore with cognitive dissonance.. Go form an opinion and then GET BACK TO ME on Waco...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What a load of horseshit.
They could have arrested Koresh during one of his many trips to town.
They blew it and kids died because of it.
And no the branch davidians didnt set the fire it was caused by the tear gas canisters,just like in the Chris Dorner stand off.
They know these canisters will start a fire.

Bullshit. The Davidians themselves were recorded saying they were dousing the compound with Coleman fuel before setting it on fire themselves. Spontaneous fires ignited in three separate locations around the compound. It was a mass suicide. Some of the bodies recovered were found to have died by gunshot wounds. Some of them shot themselves rather than die by fire. If it wasn't suicide, they would have fled the compound when the fires started, they wouldn't have stayed inside and committed suicide. They would have gotten their children out. It was a mass suicide. Deal with it.

And you have Janet Reno stating that if she had KNOWN the Davidians were spreading fuel -- she would have STOPPED the assault. Testimonies vary as to what was actually heard. But either they KNEW the Davidians were spreading fuel and lobbed those incendiary devices ANYWAY or they never heard anything of the sort -- they staged a millitary style attack on civilians without any regard for providing an evac or safety plan.. You love yourself some military justice ---- don't ya???

The FBI was recording the Davidians and their conversation about dousing their own compound with Coleman fuel was happening as law enforcement was tearing down walls and firing tear gas. There's no evidence I'm aware of that Janet Reno was listening live as they carried out their own demise.

So all you have is the word of the killers?
If it was the cops you wouldnt believe em.

Yes, the word of the killers being the Davidians themselves. I heard the audio where they were discussing dousing their own compound with fuel.

It was a mass suicide.

Than link it.

 

[Faun]

Irrelevant, they didn't. Koresh and his followers still holed up inside their compound in defiance of arrest warrants. They then torched their own compound and killed their own children when law enforcement finally moved in to root them out. The parents of those kids are to blame for their deaths, not the government.

What a load of horseshit.
They could have arrested Koresh during one of his many trips to town.
They blew it and kids died because of it.
And no the branch davidians didnt set the fire it was caused by the tear gas canisters,just like in the Chris Dorner stand off.
They know these canisters will start a fire.

Bullshit. The Davidians themselves were recorded saying they were dousing the compound with Coleman fuel before setting it on fire themselves. Spontaneous fires ignited in three separate locations around the compound. It was a mass suicide. Some of the bodies recovered were found to have died by gunshot wounds. Some of them shot themselves rather than die by fire. If it wasn't suicide, they would have fled the compound when the fires started, they wouldn't have stayed inside and committed suicide. They would have gotten their children out. It was a mass suicide. Deal with it.

Betcha your nose was totally out of joint about the "Hands Up -- Don't Shoot" fantasy in St. Louis -- wasn't it?
You probably have SITUATIONAL problems with state Authority.. And view govt over-use of force as some kind of really useful tool to use against people you DON'T like.

Let's test your consistency here. Tell me how much you APPROVE of this BOMBING of an entire black neighborhood to end a "stand-off"... Hope you've heard of it..

25 Years Ago: Philadelphia Police Bombs MOVE Headquarters Killing 11, Destroying 65 Homes | Democracy Now!

Regarding Michael Brown... when the story broke, I thought the cop was wrong based in the limited information released. With all the information known now, Wilson acted appropriately.

As far as Philadelphia... I don't know enough about to to render an opinion.

Waco, I followed closely.

Well NOW that you KNOW they bombed out an entire black neighborhood in Philadelphia -- you're saying you have "NO OPINION" on that over-use of force? Perhaps you OUGHT to know about it. Wasn't a fringe religious group that time -- you MIGHT find an ounce of outrage. OR ------------------ maybe not..

Not liking the fact you didn't know about it or don't want to read some about it..
Seems to me -- that might cause your head to explore with cognitive dissonance.. Go form an opinion and then GET BACK TO ME on Waco...

Without knowing all the details of what happened in Philadelphia, how could I possibly render an an informed opinion based on your claim that police bombed an entire neighborhood?

Regardless... if you don't like my opinion on Waco -- don't read my posts about it then. Simple, eh?

 

[P@triot]

Um....I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As I noted above - "federal law TRUMPS local law". I'm well aware of the Supremacy Clause. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'm the one that introduced it to the uniformed (that would be liberals of course) here on USMB.

So what is your point here? Or were you just simply supporting what I had said? If it's the gay angle (as I suspect) then you are 1,000% wrong. The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The Constitution does not grant the federal government power over everything (and sure as hell does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever over marriage). The Supremacy Clause only applies to the Constitution and the Constitution only grants the federal government 18 specific, enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers, the federal government has zero authority and zero say over. Fact. Simple, indisputable fact.

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

Man is that fall down hilarious. Clearly you have no idea who John Marshall was (hint: he was such a big government, expand the powers of the federal government proponent that he has been referred to as "probably the greatest Hamiltonian constitutionalist after Hamilton himself").

And let me guess...you have no idea where Alexander Hamilton stood on government and the Constitution (another hint: he was the mortal enemy of Thomas Jefferson because he wanted to ignore the U.S. Constitution and expand the powers of the federal government far beyond what the Constitution permits).

Seriously sparky - you might want to try just a little research before commenting in the future. This is why history is so important and why liberals need to stop rejecting it. Just saying sparky...

“…beyond what the Constitution permits…”

lol

You can’t be serious, this is ignorant nonsense; Hamilton sought to do no such thing.

The courts determine what the Constitution permits, consistent with its case law, not you and other rightwing dullards.

Clearly you have no idea who Alexander Hamilton was (shocking) as that was exactly what he attempted to do. And that is why he attacked Thomas Jefferson so ferociously - because Jefferson fiercely defended the U.S. Constitution as written.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Please review Necessary and Proper Clause and look up Stare Decisis.

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

Once again....thank you for proving my point for me. The federal government cannot deny someone marriage (gay or otherwise). But they also can't force it on the American people. They have no authority over it so they have to stay out of it.

You either don't comprehend what you are reading here or you are desperately grasping at straws. Either way, with each post your simply supporting what I've already proven to be true.

Please post an example of two men or two women taken by the state and forced to marry. Otherwise, STFU.

Wow....taking nonsensical to a whole new level I see. The issue is not taking people and forcing them to marry - the issue is forcing all states to recognize gay marriage. The federal government has no such authority. Not only have we already proven that by marriage not being one of the 18 enumerated powers, but we can further prove it by a look at the 10th Amendment:

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.

Sorry junior - but once again this is cut & dry. It could not be any more clear. It is illegal for the federal government to force the states to do anything when it comes to marriage. Furthermore, the voters of each individual state have the right to choose whether or not to recognize gay marriage. If the voters of New York do - so be it. If the voters of Oklahoma do not - so be it. That's the entire point of the United States. 50 individual states, controlled by the people, united only in 18 specific, enumerated powers.

Game. Set. Match. Thanks for playing.

Wow – at least you’re consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

Federal laws, the rulings of Federal courts, and the Federal Constitution are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Cont., Article VI; see also Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

Consequently, Federal courts do in fact have jurisdiction over the states, and have the authority to invalidate state laws and measures repugnant to the Constitution and its case law, including the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that prohibits the states from denying gay Americans access to marriage law, in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of that Amendment.

 

[P@triot]

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, not as perceived by wrongheaded conservative reactionaries, ignorant libertarians, and TPM nitwits.

This is unquestionably the most ignorant post ever made on USMB. Seriously. It truly is. There are a zillion way to prove that this is 100% wrong (and astoundingly ignorant) but I'll just point out the obvious and move on:

If the Constitution existed "solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court" what did the U.S. do for THREE YEARS between the Constitution being ratified and the first Supreme Court case?!?! Did we not have a Constitution? Was there no supreme law of the land?

You sir, are a monumental jack-ass and you have humiliated yourself in front of the world by your astounding lack of knowledge about the U.S. Constitution and basic U.S. history. Since nobody could be this stupid, I have to assume that this is your desperate (not to mention very weak and sad) attempt to convince the American people of why your side should have the right to violate the Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

It doesn't even remotely apply. The "Necessary & Proper Clause" applies only to the 18 enumerated powers (just as the Supremacy Clause does). This is from your own link above (did you not read the page before posting it as "proof"?!?):

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You literally just proved my point for me. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, therefore the federal government has zero jurisdiction over it. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling is 100% illegal.

I find it humorous (no - seriously - I really do) how liberals will randomly grab something in the Constitution that they don't even grasp and try to apply it nonsensically in there favor when in fact, all it does is prove that conservatives were right all along.

"... and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,or in any Department or Officer thereof."

I suppose John Marshall is one of those liberals who randomly grabbed stuff from COTUS too. The powers (necessary and proper) are vested, much as is Marbury v. Madison, a result of the time honored principle of stare decisis; The IX Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is sufficient to guarantee the right of the contract of marriage to the LGBT Community, and said right shall be recognized by every state in the union.

Once again....thank you for proving my point for me. The federal government cannot deny someone marriage (gay or otherwise). But they also can't force it on the American people. They have no authority over it so they have to stay out of it.

You either don't comprehend what you are reading here or you are desperately grasping at straws. Either way, with each post your simply supporting what I've already proven to be true.

Please post an example of two men or two women taken by the state and forced to marry. Otherwise, STFU.

Wow....taking nonsensical to a whole new level I see. The issue is not taking people and forcing them to marry - the issue is forcing all states to recognize gay marriage. The federal government has no such authority. Not only have we already proven that by marriage not being one of the 18 enumerated powers, but we can further prove it by a look at the 10th Amendment:

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.

Sorry junior - but once again this is cut & dry. It could not be any more clear. It is illegal for the federal government to force the states to do anything when it comes to marriage. Furthermore, the voters of each individual state have the right to choose whether or not to recognize gay marriage. If the voters of New York do - so be it. If the voters of Oklahoma do not - so be it. That's the entire point of the United States. 50 individual states, controlled by the people, united only in 18 specific, enumerated powers.

Game. Set. Match. Thanks for playing.

Wow – at least you’re consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

Federal laws, the rulings of Federal courts, and the Federal Constitution are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

US Cont., Article VI; see also Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

Consequently, Federal courts do in fact have jurisdiction over the states, and have the authority to invalidate state laws and measures repugnant to the Constitution and its case law, including the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that prohibits the states from denying gay Americans access to marriage law, in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of that Amendment.

So I ask you to cite the section of the U.S. Constitution that grants the Supreme Court the power to "interpret" the Constitution itself and you come back with "this Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in very state shall be bound thereby"?!? Bwahahahahaha! Yeah....no shit junior. I've been telling you for 2 hours now that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and we are all bound by it.

Now, would you like to try again when it comes to citing which section of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the right to interpret what the Constitution means?

 

[P@triot]

Simple question for C_Clayton_Jones: is the U.S. Constitution the law or not? This is a simple yes or no question.