It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[Faun]

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.

You miserable piece of shit


I want you to provide a link supporting your totally erroneous slanderous post.


.

Oh? You wanna link?

Sure, here ya go --> link

So ya got nothen....

Of course I do; and of course, I posted it.

But for the record, when someone calls me a POS and demands I do something -- they should expect to be told to fuck off.

And where exactly did I call you POS?

I didn't say you did; which is why I gave you a link to corroborate what I said instead of telling you to fuck off.

 

[P@triot]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

You're not getting any younger. How's your revolution coming along?

You know....overall....I'd say it's going pretty well. The Dumbocrats pissed of the American people and gave rise to the Tea Party. Then, the American people handed over both the House and the Senate to conservatives. In addition to that, the American people turned over governorships, state legislatures, and local offices to conservatives in record numbers. And now the Dumbocrats had a fall-down hilarious whopping THREE candidates run for president, and the two that are left are completely and totally unelectable - so it is highly likely the White House will also be turned over to conservatives as well now.

The revolution is strong and crushing everything in site at this point. Let's just hope the movement continues.

 

[P@triot]

Someone mentioned the Tea Party. Now that's a good idea. Should be able to find motivated people from there. They have to be disappointed in how the TP has gone soft.

No, you and your ilk bought their bullshit. Like when they said they were going to Washington to clean it up, not become career politicians. Louis Gommert, Marsha Blackburn, Scott Dejarlais and all the rest of the teabaggers are now running for their third term.

Well duh....they aren't done cleaning it up yet. You still have career politicians who have bilked tens of millions of dollars out of the American people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Dumbocrats destroyed America. The Tea Party is simply restoring Constitutional government (and it's hilarious how much lawful government scares people like you).

 

[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.

LOL, nice rebuttal. Calling ME a fascist is ridiculous - I'm one of the bleeding hearts. At least I was until your leaders told you to change the story and to find a new pejorative. I really enjoy the new message, when bleeding heart failed you've now been told to call my side of the aisle fascist communist statists.

BTW, I've had ConLaw and my instructor was a lawyer, not a college drop out like Hannity or Limbaugh.

Yeah....uh....even if you are a "bleeding heart" it does not mean that you're not a fascist. Adolf Hitler's heart bleed for Germany and his people. At the end of the day, you can't accept that other people are free to live their life how they want to live it in America. You want to force your very radical and very disturbing messed up view down everyone's throat. You crave power over others. It's disturbing. And sadly, it's a long and ugly trait of man. Since the beginning of time, people like you have been trying to have power and control over others.

This perfectly summarizes the absurdity of your belief that just because you think you "care" you somehow aren't a danger to freedom:

"Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it." - Milton Friedman

 

[P@triot]

"... 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.

Thanks. Amazing isn't it, the Crazy Right Wingers can't provide any evidence (such as this ^^^) and continue to post opinions based on the words of Hannity, Limbaugh and The Straw Man.

We provided evidence. We posted the U.S. Constitution. Libtard Dumbocrats choose to pretend like it doesn't exist and that the "Supreme Court decides how the government operates". It's laughable because we all know that none of you libtards even remotely believe that. It's simply that the U.S. Constitution prevents you from forcing your fascism on others so you have to point to something else in your justification for wanting to control everyone else.

 

[P@triot]

BTW, I've had ConLaw and my instructor was a lawyer, not a college drop out like Hannity or Limbaugh.

Well this is excellent then! I've asked CCJ multiple times where the U.S. Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution itself (since he claims the Constitution doesn't even exist and it is the Supreme Court that decides what is what) and he is been completely and totally incapable of providing that information. Since you've been educated in constitutional law - perhaps you could tell us what section of the U.S. Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution?

 

[Old Rocks]

For my fellow conswrvatives here, an update.

I met with some friends and acquaintances who are like minded in our love of country and hatred of progressives and their stupidity. Being only a concerned citizen and not much of a community organizer, I failed to rally them. We all agreed that both Hillary and Sanders would be a disaster, and that we all would disobey any new law or bill restricting firearms in any way. We discussed briefly who we knew that could help us down the road when push comes to shove, then after a few more beers we began discussing everything else from guns to the election to sports.

We didn't iron out any details about how or when we might start any serious resisting but we probably need a spark, or someone who actually knows how to do this. The good news is we've had a meeting. It's a start.

Local. Start local. We have to take back control from the feds at the local level.

Yeah, by God, let's go hold some ducks hostage!

 

[PredFan]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

You're not getting any younger. How's your revolution coming along?

Pay attention, idiot.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You miserable piece of shit


I want you to provide a link supporting your totally erroneous slanderous post.


.

Oh? You wanna link?

Sure, here ya go --> link

So ya got nothen....

Of course I do; and of course, I posted it.

But for the record, when someone calls me a POS and demands I do something -- they should expect to be told to fuck off.

And where exactly did I call you POS?

You say that like anyone gives a shit what you think.

Hate to make a liar out of you ya POS.

 

[Wry Catcher]

BTW, I've had ConLaw and my instructor was a lawyer, not a college drop out like Hannity or Limbaugh.

Well this is excellent then! I've asked CCJ multiple times where the U.S. Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution itself (since he claims the Constitution doesn't even exist and it is the Supreme Court that decides what is what) and he is been completely and totally incapable of providing that information. Since you've been educated in constitutional law - perhaps you could tell us what section of the U.S. Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution?

There is none. Happy now? Do you have any idea of the concept of stare decisis? Since we have operated on the principle of Judicial Review for over two centuries, a non myopic, non biased, thinker will accept Judicial Review as the law of the land. You on the other hand will accept it when the outcome suits you, and piss and moan when it doesn't.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ultimately, it's just sad that liberals can't accept that the American people overwhelmingly reject their radical views. If the American people actually agreed with them, they would have no problem amending the Constitution to make marriage the responsibility of the federal government. Or to make education the responsibility of the federal government. The fact that they can't get the Constitution amended just proves that those left-wing views are not what the American people want.

It's equally sad that they can go live their liberal utopia in one of any number of countries (Cuba, Cambodia, etc.). The fact that they refuse to do so just goes to show that they know they need conservatives to mooch off of for survival.

Hey dumb ass, President Obama twice won the White House, how does that represent a rejection of liberal views? And, were the election held today, Clinton would stomp either Cruz or Trump.

Nor only that, is is the liberal states that contribute more in taxes to the Federal Government than does the conservative states. It is the conservatives that are the takers, uneducated, and unable to navigate their way in the modern world. And very resentful of that fact as we see on this board.

So they take refuge in fantasies of bloody revenge with their guns, and do nothing to improve their state.

 

[Old Rocks]

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!

Humans do stupid things, police are humans. Enough said. The feds and local police did learn from those fiascos. What they learned was evident at the Malhuer Refuge, where they gave the dingbats enough rope to hang themselves with. By the end of that nonsense, very little sympathy for the militia except for the mentally unstable.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

I love when liberals get pissed off because they got annihilated with facts in an argument. This right here is a prime example of why they hate the U.S. Constitution so much. It prevents them from forcing their skewed and radical ideology down the throats of others. So they desperately try to misinterpret the Constitution. The problem is, it is so well written, so cut & dry, that it really leaves them no argument if they are debating someone who is informed on the U.S. Constitution. And that is when they turn to insults and violence...

Really? In the 72 years that I have lived, it is the 'Conservatives' that have been annihilated. From Civil rights to the upholding of laws concerning Health Care. And it is the 'Conservatives' that constantly talk of second amendment solutions.

Liberals will continue to win, because the basis of the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States of America was the idea that a free people can decide how their government can be run for the benefit of all citizens, not just an aristocrasy or oligarchy. And you 'Conservatives' that are constantly looking back to a hundred years ago to some fictional golden age will continue to lose.

 

[Old Rocks]

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?


.

Is an idiot making idiotic statements still an idiot? In other words, you want it your way, no matter what the people who have studied law and the Constitution state.

 

[P@triot]

BTW, I've had ConLaw and my instructor was a lawyer, not a college drop out like Hannity or Limbaugh.

Well this is excellent then! I've asked CCJ multiple times where the U.S. Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution itself (since he claims the Constitution doesn't even exist and it is the Supreme Court that decides what is what) and he is been completely and totally incapable of providing that information. Since you've been educated in constitutional law - perhaps you could tell us what section of the U.S. Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution?

There is none. Happy now? Do you have any idea of the concept of stare decisis? Since we have operated on the principle of Judicial Review for over two centuries, a non myopic, non biased, thinker will accept Judicial Review as the law of the land. You on the other hand will accept it when the outcome suits you, and piss and moan when it doesn't.

So thank you for your honesty. And no - I do not accept "judicial review as the law of the land" when it "suits me". At all. The Supreme Court's job is to rule on any challenged legislation as it applies to the U.S. Constitution - not the Constitution itself.

As far as your absurd meme that because a group of people with a sick agenda abandoned the Constitution roughly 100+ years ago that we should all just accept that and support abandoning the Constitution also - well, that is the equivalent of saying that since Jack the Ripper started serial killing over 100+ years ago and people like Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgeway, and Jeffrey Dahmer continued, we should all just accept and embrace serial murders. It's an absurd position. You don't ignore the law because other criminals ignored the law.

The "law of the land" is the U.S. Constitution and the Supremacy Clause establishes as much. It does not say the Supreme Court - it says the U.S. Constitution. Now - this is what is so maddening about you liberals. Our founding fathers experienced oppression first hand and they had no desire to rule over anybody. They were also men of humility that recognized they did not know everything and that they had no idea what the future held. So they built a process into the Constitution that it could be altered when necessary to suit society's needs. You liberals could have everything you desire legally if you simply went through the amendment process. Except...you can't get the votes. But rather than accept that the American people do not share your radical views, you attempt to over throw the Constitution by claiming it's irrelevant, that the Supreme Court decides the law, and then by stacking the Supreme Court with political activists instead of actual justices. It is, in fact, a form of a coup - much like Saddam Hussein used to over throw the democratic government of Iraq.

 

[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.

I love when liberals get pissed off because they got annihilated with facts in an argument. This right here is a prime example of why they hate the U.S. Constitution so much. It prevents them from forcing their skewed and radical ideology down the throats of others. So they desperately try to misinterpret the Constitution. The problem is, it is so well written, so cut & dry, that it really leaves them no argument if they are debating someone who is informed on the U.S. Constitution. And that is when they turn to insults and violence...

Really? In the 72 years that I have lived, it is the 'Conservatives' that have been annihilated. From Civil rights to the upholding of laws concerning Health Care. And it is the 'Conservatives' that constantly talk of second amendment solutions.

Liberals will continue to win, because the basis of the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States of America was the idea that a free people can decide how their government can be run for the benefit of all citizens, not just an aristocrasy or oligarchy. And you 'Conservatives' that are constantly looking back to a hundred years ago to some fictional golden age will continue to lose.

Oh my God is that hilarious. Um....just so you know - it was Republicans/Conservatives that freed the slaves while Democrats vehemently opposed it, started the Civil War over it, and then killed the sitting U.S. President over it (Abraham Lincoln was a Republican chief - look it up). And it was the Republicans/Conservatives who lead the civil rights movement, while the Democrats vehemently opposed it.

You are astoundingly ignorant of U.S. history and completely brain washed by liberal propaganda. Wow

 

[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.

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?


.

Is an idiot making idiotic statements still an idiot? In other words, you want it your way, no matter what the people who have studied law and the Constitution state.

You have no idea what the Constitution states. Hell, you didn't even know that it was Republicans that freed the slaves and lead the civil rights movement. You are completely unqualified to be discussing U.S. government in any capacity (but I bet that won't stop you!).

 

[P@triot]

Serious question Wry Catcher: why doesn't the left simply lead an honest effort (i.e. no propaganda, no lies, etc.) to amend the U.S. Constitution to suit the platform of the Democrat Party (i.e. universal healthcare, etc.)? And...if that effort falls short....why doesn't the left simply achieve that platform anyway through foundations? If you want universal healthcare and the American people reject, why not just start a foundation providing health insurance for those that can't afford it? Literally everybody wins in this scenario. The right is still free from government coercion, the left still gets the social programs they desire. As a nation, we are all happy and we all get what we want. See how great it can be when we turn to principles of freedom? You can do anything you desire though foundations built on volunteers, donations, etc. Choice. Freedom. What is so wrong with that? Hell - even I would support something like that with my time and money.

 

[Contumacious]

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?


.

Is an idiot making idiotic statements still an idiot? In other words, you want it your way, no matter what the people who have studied law and the Constitution state.

Quit stonewalling and answer the fucking question:

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

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL, nice rebuttal. Calling ME a fascist is ridiculous - I'm one of the bleeding hearts. At least I was until your leaders told you to change the story and to find a new pejorative. I really enjoy the new message, when bleeding heart failed you've now been told to call my side of the aisle fascist communist statists.

BTW, I've had ConLaw and my instructor was a lawyer, not a college drop out like Hannity or Limbaugh.

At the end of the day, you can't accept that other people are free to live their life how they want to live it in America. You want to force your very radical and very disturbing messed up view down everyone's throat. You crave power over others. It's disturbing.

Tell the forum where you stand on abortion and gay marriage....

... then duck as the forum laughs at your hypocrisy.