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.
False derivative analogy.
The right regulations keep the roof from collapsing on the rest of us.
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.
...with all the confidence of the moth who says HELL YA!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.
and then dive bombs into the bug zapper.
Anthony Scalia, on government limiting rights of private citizens Because: First Amendment!
We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.
On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.
Also, too:
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."
And, finally:
It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in;
but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
LINK
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
Watch what happens when you start altering the construction according to YOUR whims without taking into account what is needed to maintain structural integrity.
Dramatic moment garage falls onto builder after he knocks down supporting wall without removing roof first | Mail Online
The Constitution was designed to maintain the structural integrity of our nation and screwing around with it will undoubtedly result in this kind of result (see the linked video).
It's a typical result from Liberals. Unanticipated consequences and unforeseen results.
And we all know the Liberal's pattern.
IRVING KRISTOL: If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and 70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down? Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down. And everyone would have been wrong.
Now, thats not something that the liberals have been able to face up to.
Theyve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they dont know what to do about.
Silt 3.0: Baby It's Cold Outside (first half)
So, bottom line, the Libs want to screw around with the Constitution, without concern that it may cause permanent irreparable harm to the country and they have no way to fix it or return it to it's previous state.
Get the fuck outta here with your crazy, reckless, half-baked, irresponsibly shitty ideas!
The libturds are always saying that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.
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.
It is absolutely amazing that our great grandfathers and great grandmothers managed to survive without their lives being managed by government. Aside from that, I believe that tainted food and child labor was legislated by congress, and not by any edict from the supreme court.
The old ways of tainted food and child laborers were not the correct way, either.
It is absolutely amazing that our great grandfathers and great grandmothers managed to survive without their lives being managed by government. Aside from that, I believe that tainted food and child labor was legislated by congress, and not by any edict from the supreme court.
Some did, some didn't
Life expectancy was in the low 60s
That's not the argument. Debate over interpretation is legitimate. "Living document" proponents want to change the meaning as needed, without going through the amendment process. That just "cheating".
It's a circular argument. Who is going to decide that the Supreme Court made a 'living document' ruling?
"Living document" advocates admit they are changing the meaning. They believe that's necessary to address our changing needs. But that's what the amendment process is for, and they're trying to do an end run around it because they can't be bothered to build the consensus required to make their desired changes legitimately.
Scalia is right, and RIGHTWINGER, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!!
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.
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
The Constitution was not "written broadly." If you want to change what it says, it allows for amendments. the Supreme Court was not given the job of redefining what it says. Those redefinitions have nothing to do with any "needs of the 21st Century." They are simply the result of subversives attempting to implement their anti-American agenda.
OK then
A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed
In the absence of a well regulated militia, you have no right to own a gun
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
Watch what happens when you start altering the construction according to YOUR whims without taking into account what is needed to maintain structural integrity.
Dramatic moment garage falls onto builder after he knocks down supporting wall without removing roof first | Mail Online
The Constitution was designed to maintain the structural integrity of our nation and screwing around with it will undoubtedly result in this kind of result (see the linked video).
It's a typical result from Liberals. Unanticipated consequences and unforeseen results.
And we all know the Liberal's pattern.
IRVING KRISTOL: If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and 70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down? Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down. And everyone would have been wrong.
Now, thats not something that the liberals have been able to face up to.
Theyve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they dont know what to do about.
Silt 3.0: Baby It's Cold Outside (first half)
So, bottom line, the Libs want to screw around with the Constitution, without concern that it may cause permanent irreparable harm to the country and they have no way to fix it or return it to it's previous state.
Get the fuck outta here with your crazy, reckless, half-baked, irresponsibly shitty ideas!
Sorry.......but that is the dumbest post I have seen in a while
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.
Welcome to the 21st century farmer john!
For about the first 50 years of our country, the gov't had control over every able-bodied free white man, (with a few exceptions) over 18 years, to age 45 -- who informed him he had to not only be forced to purchase these items: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.
It is absolutely amazing that our great grandfathers and great grandmothers managed to survive without their lives being managed by government. Aside from that, I believe that tainted food and child labor was legislated by congress, and not by any edict from the supreme court.
Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself
Nope, of course not. I'm not the one who claims the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court decides it says. I'm also not the one who believes such idiocy, but you are such a moron.
How would you strike down an unconstitutional state law if you didn't have a Supreme Court with the power to say that the Constitution doesn't permit that law to be in place?
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.
These people are seriously arguing for the 18th century. How fucking nuts is that!
Watch what happens when you start altering the construction according to YOUR whims without taking into account what is needed to maintain structural integrity.
Dramatic moment garage falls onto builder after he knocks down supporting wall without removing roof first | Mail Online
The Constitution was designed to maintain the structural integrity of our nation and screwing around with it will undoubtedly result in this kind of result (see the linked video).
It's a typical result from Liberals. Unanticipated consequences and unforeseen results.
And we all know the Liberal's pattern.
Silt 3.0: Baby It's Cold Outside (first half)
So, bottom line, the Libs want to screw around with the Constitution, without concern that it may cause permanent irreparable harm to the country and they have no way to fix it or return it to it's previous state.
Get the fuck outta here with your crazy, reckless, half-baked, irresponsibly shitty ideas!
Sorry.......but that is the dumbest post I have seen in a while
Only thing you can think of to say?
I guess the truth DOES trump all.
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.
It is absolutely amazing that our great grandfathers and great grandmothers managed to survive without their lives being managed by government. Aside from that, I believe that tainted food and child labor was legislated by congress, and not by any edict from the supreme court.
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.
