paperview
Life is Good
- Jul 27, 2009
- 14,558
- 2,968
The comatose dude thought slaves were meant to be protected by the constitution with full rights.
More silly deflection on your part.
It's not deflection. He's a loony tune.
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.
The comatose dude thought slaves were meant to be protected by the constitution with full rights.
More silly deflection on your part.
Assumptions make you look silly.
The point is that we have for a VERY long time been at the mercy of judicial interpreters.
Yes, you are correct, we have been at their mercy, and still are. But, that does not mean that we have to buy into that idea as the proper way of doing it.
The old ways of tainted food and child laborers were not the correct way, either.
Society evolves
Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed
The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society
That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on
No law that Congress passed deserves the credit for the improvement in that statistic.
Congress doesn't pass laws. Congress passes bills which are either signed into law by the president, or once he vetoes it, the president's veto can be overturned by a 2/3rds vote of Congress.
Where is your picture of Che?
So....you would contend that the President has the authority to treat the law, any law any way he wishes....I mean just as he has the ACA?
Hundreds of years of court decisions on the interpretation of the Constitution s a living organism
Scalia, if anyone, should understand his job
Your statement is meaningless. We already know the Supreme Court has stretched the meaning of the Constitution beyond recognition. The question being discussed is whether its correct to do so.
Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself
I think the OP would blow a gasket if (s)he read Scalia's authoring of the decision in Employment Division v. Smith
>>>>
The libturds are always saying that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.
Not quite, but the SC does determine the constitutionality of laws, so....
As far as the Constitution being a living document, well it is. It has been amended to suit changing times and views. Perhaps you've heard of the Bill of Rights? How about the 15th amendment which "prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude"? Should we go back to the days before that amendment because it wasn't originally in the Constitution?
Scalia had no problem interpretting the constitution his own way in Heller or Citizen's United.
He interpreted the document correctly. The libturds having a hissy fit because they think the government can limit the First Amendment rights of private citizens are wrong.
You and others on the right cant have it both ways; if Scalia interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Heller, then he also interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), where Scalia reaffirmed the fact that indeed government has the authority to place limits on religions liberty, and where religious liberty does not excuse disobeying an otherwise just and valid law.
The regulations trying to prevent tainted food and ending child labor in no way was unconstitutional and in no way caused irreparable harm to the country.
Congress doesn't pass laws. Congress passes bills which are either signed into law by the president, or once he vetoes it, the president's veto can be overturned by a 2/3rds vote of Congress.
Where is your picture of Che?
So....you would contend that the President has the authority to treat the law, any law any way he wishes....I mean just as he has the ACA?
It's amazing how many conservatives have a reading comprehension problem. Over the years, I've come to an conclusion about why that might be so. The liberals paid attention in class and learned the subjects being taught in order to master concepts necessary for later in life when critical thinking and analysis is required. Conservatives spent their time forming their opinions and eschewing the elitism of people who think that higher education and knowing facts is more important than having an uninformed opinion on every subject under the sun as if believing something automatically made it true.
By the way, where's your picture of Franco?
So conservatives embraced restrictions to the First Amendment as outlined by Scalia in Employment Division v. Smith?He interpreted the document correctly. The libturds having a hissy fit because they think the government can limit the First Amendment rights of private citizens are wrong.
You and others on the right cant have it both ways; if Scalia interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Heller, then he also interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), where Scalia reaffirmed the fact that indeed government has the authority to place limits on religions liberty, and where religious liberty does not excuse disobeying an otherwise just and valid law.
It is YOUR SIDE that wants everything both ways.
Where is your picture of Che?
So....you would contend that the President has the authority to treat the law, any law any way he wishes....I mean just as he has the ACA?
It's amazing how many conservatives have a reading comprehension problem. Over the years, I've come to an conclusion about why that might be so. The liberals paid attention in class and learned the subjects being taught in order to master concepts necessary for later in life when critical thinking and analysis is required. Conservatives spent their time forming their opinions and eschewing the elitism of people who think that higher education and knowing facts is more important than having an uninformed opinion on every subject under the sun as if believing something automatically made it true.
By the way, where's your picture of Franco?
Nah, any Liberals able to process any of this more advanced info are just idiot savants.
It's amazing how many conservatives have a reading comprehension problem. Over the years, I've come to an conclusion about why that might be so. The liberals paid attention in class and learned the subjects being taught in order to master concepts necessary for later in life when critical thinking and analysis is required. Conservatives spent their time forming their opinions and eschewing the elitism of people who think that higher education and knowing facts is more important than having an uninformed opinion on every subject under the sun as if believing something automatically made it true.
By the way, where's your picture of Franco?
Nah, any Liberals able to process any of this more advanced info are just idiot savants.
Idiot Savant is a term that is no loger considered accurate and, as a result, is also no longer in common usage, except among the more ignorant classes of people. Savant Syndrome is considered more accurate. Hopefully, you'll be able to benefit from my greater knowledge on the subject...
You and others on the right can’t have it both ways; if Scalia interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Heller, then he also interpreted the Constitution correctly with regard to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), where Scalia reaffirmed the fact that indeed government has the authority to place limits on religions liberty, and where religious liberty does not excuse disobeying an otherwise just and valid law.
It's amazing how many conservatives have a reading comprehension problem. Over the years, I've come to an conclusion about why that might be so. The liberals paid attention in class and learned the subjects being taught in order to master concepts necessary for later in life when critical thinking and analysis is required. Conservatives spent their time forming their opinions and eschewing the elitism of people who think that higher education and knowing facts is more important than having an uninformed opinion on every subject under the sun as if believing something automatically made it true.
By the way, where's your picture of Franco?
Nah, any Liberals able to process any of this more advanced info are just idiot savants.
Idiot Savant is a term that is no loger considered accurate and, as a result, is also no longer in common usage, except among the more ignorant classes of people. Savant Syndrome is considered more accurate. Hopefully, you'll be able to benefit from my greater knowledge on the subject, which is likely also true about a wide variety of subjects.
Society evolves
Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed
The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society
That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on
No, that is why we have Article V, to amend the Constitution.
Nah, any Liberals able to process any of this more advanced info are just idiot savants.
Idiot Savant is a term that is no loger considered accurate and, as a result, is also no longer in common usage, except among the more ignorant classes of people. Savant Syndrome is considered more accurate. Hopefully, you'll be able to benefit from my greater knowledge on the subject...
I'm reminded of the time when my date (a former Nun) and I were at a social affair and one of her friends began talking about the drugs used for mood disorders. Oh, she knew them all and I knew none of them. Well, I later learned she was a drug addict.
Society evolves
Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed
The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society
That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on
No, that is why we have Article V, to amend the Constitution.
Nonsense.
The amendment process was never intended to address every conflict and controversy that manifests in society; in fact, its wholly unsuited to bring a resolution to the vast majority of issues that come before the courts again, to attempt to do so would litter the Constitution with thousands of amendments rendering it unworkable.
Moreover, it would violate each Americans First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and each Americans Fifth Amendment right to due process of the law by seeking relief before the Federal courts.
ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION: AN EMERGENCY SOLUTION, HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT
by MARK MECKLER
10 Feb 2014 827 POST A COMMENT
Some people dont believe it.
In school, we were taught, along with reading, riting, and rithmatic, how the Constitution is amended: an amendment must go before both houses of Congress and pass a two-thirds vote. Before it becomes a permanent part of the Constitution, three fourths of the state legislatures would have to ratify it.
But theres another way to change the Constitution, and its hidden in plain sight in Article V, one that many of us have never even heard of. Heres the text of Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, also as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress
Did you catch the second way to change the Constitution?
In addition to the way stated above, the founders put a little gift in Article V for us. In fact, George Mason is the one who made sure to include what some have called a Constitutional Emergency Cord to be pulled in case of government overreach. Mason urged his fellow founders, It would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.
The founders paid attention to Masons argument and changed Article V to reflect this second way: Congress will call a convention if two thirds of the states petition to call a convention in which they can consider new amendments. In both the first and second scenarios, three fourths of the state legislatures must ratify the amendments before they become permanent.
Therein lies the beauty of Article V. It gives us two ways to change things up when times get challenging. Amending the Constitution isnt too easy (which would throw society into chaos), and its not too hard (which would make the Constitution so rigid that the people might rebel against it).
Since the government has tried to reach into our homes, medical care, and pockets, frustrated citizens have talked of rebelling against the government or even secession. But this extreme reaction ignores the fact that the founders saw this day coming and gave us a Constitutional tool which allows us to restrain the out-of-control federal government. Knowing human nature, the founders knew the federal government would eventually grow like a fungus and try to cover every aspect of our lives. Thats why theres a modern-day interest in Article V. Mark Levins book The Liberty Amendments brought it into the public eye, Glenn Beck has also been promoting it on his show, Hannity and Limbaugh are talking about it, and several well-known leaders such as Tom Coburn, Michael Farris, Mike Huckabee, and David Barton have publicly endorsed it.
As President of Citizens for Self-Governance, Ive been advocating a convention of states since long before the idea reached the general public. Weve even created a viable strategy to bring a convention to reality.
Many times, people lament how powerful and abusive our federal government has become, without realizing theres a way to fight it right there in Article V of the Constitution. So now you know. Now you see.
But we have to do more than just see it.
This week, the Convention of States resolution is pending in multiple state legislatures. Many state legislators are standing up and calling for an Amending Convention under Article V. These brave legislators are fighting to take the power from the federal leviathan and return it to you, the sovereign citizen. But they cant do it without your help.
And you can help.
If youre in Florida, Arizona, or Georgia, your self-governance moment is now. Call, fax, and email your representatives. Go to Convention of States and get the details of who is on the relevant committees so that you can reach out to the right people and tell them to vote for the Convention of States resolution.
Now you know its there, and now is the time. Article V of the Constitution: a solution as big as the problem.
It is our moral obligation to use it.
Mark Meckler is the President of Citizens for Self-Governance, which created the Convention of States Project.
Society evolves
Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed
The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society
That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on
No, that is why we have Article V, to amend the Constitution.
Nonsense.
The ‘amendment process’ was never intended to address every conflict and controversy that manifests in society; in fact, it’s wholly unsuited to bring a resolution to the vast majority of issues that come before the courts – again, to attempt to do so would litter the Constitution with thousands of ‘amendments’ rendering it unworkable.
Moreover, it would violate each American’s First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and each American’s Fifth Amendment right to due process of the law by seeking relief before the Federal courts.
Idiot Savant is a term that is no loger considered accurate and, as a result, is also no longer in common usage, except among the more ignorant classes of people. Savant Syndrome is considered more accurate. Hopefully, you'll be able to benefit from my greater knowledge on the subject...
I'm reminded of the time when my date (a former Nun) and I were at a social affair and one of her friends began talking about the drugs used for mood disorders. Oh, she knew them all and I knew none of them. Well, I later learned she was a drug addict.
She probably thought you had a mood disorder (or maybe just a psychological problem of some kind), which isn't surprising seeing as how you were dating a former nun.