Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
What do you think of a "performance" that wastes taxpayer money to the tune of over $60 million to repeal Obamacare over 50 times, knowing that Obama will never sign it?
Is that the Tea Party ideal? The ones who constantly bitch about the government spending money? They're frauds from a fraudulent, Astroturfed "movement".
Nancy Pelosi's husband is a very wealthy businessman - I though you wingnuts loved those people? If you have any evidence that she has stolen taxpayer money, put up or shut the fuck up.
Obama Hellcare must be abolished by any means necessary.
It is a socialist unconstitutional scam
.
So far its withstood any constitutional challenge. And clearly 'by any means necessary' doesn't include any violent action. As you'd have to put down the beer and pizza rolls long enough to wage it. And we both know that's not going to happen.
WE THE PEOPLE are the guardians of the Constitution (1787).
You're not 'The People', Cont.
May I remind you that individuals are nominated to the SCOTUS who are socialists, fascists, government supremacists so WE THE PEOPLE are denied judicial review by an Article III Court.
Like the constitution says that direct taxes are only legal in emergencies?
May I remind you that we can actually read the constitution. And no one's eligibility to be a Supreme Court justice is predicated on whatever labels you apply to them.
As you're nobody.
Secondly , because of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL seventeenth Amendment the Senate is now another House of Representatives.
How is a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? May I remind you that a constitutional amendment IS the constitution.
You....you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about, do you?
I understand than in Orwellian terms ONLY socialists, fascists and state supremacists are "the people", that is typical of all tyrannies. The dissenters have no rights the tyrannical majority has to recognize.
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
Yeah, your conspiracy babble about Soros and 'Shultz' isn't the constitutional definition of anything.
I know you get a 'dumbfuck treat" when you sit up pretty and bleat the words your masters train you to bleat.
But conspiracy is not the correct term. Debbie Schultz is not a "conspiracy," she is in fact the chairman of your shameful party.
Likewise Soros is not some figment of anyone's imagination, but the owner of the filthy democratic - socialist party.
So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?
By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution
You should learn to read.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."
I suspect the real issue is that the Constitution is written in language that anyone with a 7th grade education can understand, so it is far over the head of you socialist drones.
What the amendment says is that searches of homes and persons absent a warrant are unreasonable.
Federalist Paper 78 said:The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.
Then let's see you put your 7th grade education to use and define the term, "natural born citizen"..."The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."
I suspect the real issue is that the Constitution is written in language that anyone with a 7th grade education can understand, so it is far over the head of you socialist drones.
What the amendment says is that searches of homes and persons absent a warrant are unreasonable.
The Constitution to you fascists is just something you like to wrap yourself up to excuse attacking others.
What does the Constitution mean, Comrade?
- Exactly what it says. It's plain English, read the fucking thing.
- Exactly what the SCOTUS wants it to say at any given second; the text is irrelevant.
- The constitution is not compatible with progressive rule so is ignored.
- Both 2 and 3
PLAIN ENGLISH? SUCH AS:
What limit is imposed on the phrase "common defence"?The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Defense means to protect. Thus COTUS provides the Congress the power to collect taxes to fund our military and preventative medicine.
- common means prevalent, thus
- Disease
- Invasion
Example of PLAIN ENGLISH!
What limit is imposed on the phrase "general Welfare"?
"general" affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread; and,
"welfare" the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group; thus PLAIN ENGLISH defines the general Welfare as a power of The Congress to collect taxes to protect the citizens of the united states from all enemies foreign, domestic, bacterial or viral.
So simple even a child can understand it.
And where is the constitutional definition of 'probable cause'? 'Cruel and usual'? 'Natural born'? 'Needful' buildings?
If the constitution needs no interpretation then it should be remarkably easy for you to show us the direct constitutional definitions....without interpretation.
Then let's see you put your 7th grade education to use and define the term, "natural born citizen"...
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.
And where is the constitutional definition of 'probable cause'? 'Cruel and usual'? 'Natural born'? 'Needful' buildings?
So your argument is that it depends on what the meaning of "is" is?
How unique.
federalist paper 78 said:The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.
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.
If that is so (which it is not) then we are not a republic but a dictatorship of the Judiciary. Rather than a coequal branch, the judicial is the unelected and unquestioned ruler of the nation with power to dictate law as a matter of edict.
Federalist Paper 78 said:It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
More accurately, I'm asking you to show me the constitutional definition of 'probable cause', 'cruel and unusual', and 'natural born citizen'.
And you're predictably giving me excuses why you can't. The reason is obvious: there are no such definitions. They're judicial interpretations. Exactly as founders intended:
federalist paper 78 said:The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.
Unless you're arguing that Hamilton didn't understand the constitution, your 'no interpretation necessary' argument is DOA. Interpretation is not only necessary, its quite vital.
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.
If that is so (which it is not) then we are not a republic but a dictatorship of the Judiciary. Rather than a coequal branch, the judicial is the unelected and unquestioned ruler of the nation with power to dictate law as a matter of edict.
Nonsense. The judiciary is fulfilling its intended role.
Federalist Paper 78 said:It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
The courts have not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law at odds with it created by the legislatures.
Which is exactly what they were intended to do.
More accurately, I'm asking you to show me the constitutional definition of 'probable cause', 'cruel and unusual', and 'natural born citizen'.
Yes, you seek to parse common language in order to obfuscate clear meaning.
I understood what you sought.
Hamilton sought a supreme central government. He did not prevail through the constitution so your appeal to authority is dubious at best.
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.
If that is so (which it is not) then we are not a republic but a dictatorship of the Judiciary. Rather than a coequal branch, the judicial is the unelected and unquestioned ruler of the nation with power to dictate law as a matter of edict.
Nonsense. The judiciary is fulfilling its intended role.
Federalist Paper 78 said:It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
The courts have not only the power but the obligation to put the constitution above any law at odds with it created by the legislatures.
Which is exactly what they were intended to do.
It's intended role as supreme ruler?
Intended by whom?
Certainly not Jefferson, Mason, or other liberty minded patriots.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."
I suspect the real issue is that the Constitution is written in language that anyone with a 7th grade education can understand, so it is far over the head of you socialist drones.
What the amendment says is that searches of homes and persons absent a warrant are unreasonable.
Then let's see you put your 7th grade education to use and define the term, "natural born citizen"...
At the writing of the COTUS, the term meant one born on US Soil. Since then it has morphed to mean those born to US citizens.
Based upon what was that the meaning of that phrase when quill inked our sacred parchment?Then let's see you put your 7th grade education to use and define the term, "natural born citizen"...
At the writing of the COTUS, the term meant one born on US Soil. Since then it has morphed to mean those born to US citizens.
