My fellow Conservatives...please read this.

[House]

Water is wet. Are we done stating the obvious now?

When the law is decisive and clear, nothing supersedes it. However, the law does not account for every single situation that can possibly arise. When that is the case, the founders' opinions are also referenced for additional guidance, as well as any other resources at their disposal.

They don't have the authority of law if law conflicts with the opinions.

Tis what tis.

You are being told that the Founders' opinions don't count today, beagle9, only the Constitution and the case law and the legislation that has been built on it.

That's a ridiculous assertion, considering the USSC takes the founders' opinions on relevant issues into consideration when they are hearing a constitutional case.

Separation of Church & State is a prime example of this. It is treated as a constitutional principle because the contents of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of ministers was considered during deliberation processes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am glad that you agree they do not have the authority of law, and cannot override law. Tis what tis.

Water is wet. Are we done stating the obvious now?

When the law is decisive and clear, nothing supersedes it. However, the law does not account for every single situation that can possibly arise. When that is the case, the founders' opinions are also referenced for additional guidance, as well as any other resources at their disposal.

They don't have the authority of law if law conflicts with the opinions.

Tis what tis.

That's a ridiculous assertion, considering the USSC takes the founders' opinions on relevant issues into consideration when they are hearing a constitutional case.

Separation of Church & State is a prime example of this. It is treated as a constitutional principle because the contents of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of ministers was considered during deliberation processes.

 

[House]

Make up your mind what argument you want to put forth, because I didn't see anybody in this thread state opinions override law. There's a world of difference between saying something doesn't count and saying it's a secondary resource. Saying the founders' opinions "don't count" is straight up bullshit. They're a secondary resource.

I am glad that you agree they do not have the authority of law, and cannot override law. Tis what tis.

Water is wet. Are we done stating the obvious now?

When the law is decisive and clear, nothing supersedes it. However, the law does not account for every single situation that can possibly arise. When that is the case, the founders' opinions are also referenced for additional guidance, as well as any other resources at their disposal.

They don't have the authority of law if law conflicts with the opinions.

Tis what tis.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My argument is clear that they don't count when they conflict settled law.

You are moving the goal posts, and I won't allow that.

They don't count.

Make up your mind what argument you want to put forth, because I didn't see anybody in this thread state opinions override law. There's a world of difference between saying something doesn't count and saying it's a secondary resource. Saying the founders' opinions "don't count" is straight up bullshit. They're a secondary resource.

I am glad that you agree they do not have the authority of law, and cannot override law. Tis what tis.

Water is wet. Are we done stating the obvious now?

When the law is decisive and clear, nothing supersedes it. However, the law does not account for every single situation that can possibly arise. When that is the case, the founders' opinions are also referenced for additional guidance, as well as any other resources at their disposal.

 

[House]

This isn't Football, sparky. There are no goal posts. Aside from that, you're a liar.

If your argument were "clear", there would obviously not have been any misunderstanding (IF that is what it was). Just because your opinion is clear TO YOU does not mean you communicated it clearly.

They're secondary resources.

My argument is clear that they don't count when they conflict settled law.

You are moving the goal posts, and I won't allow that.

They don't count.

Make up your mind what argument you want to put forth, because I didn't see anybody in this thread state opinions override law. There's a world of difference between saying something doesn't count and saying it's a secondary resource. Saying the founders' opinions "don't count" is straight up bullshit. They're a secondary resource.

I am glad that you agree they do not have the authority of law, and cannot override law. Tis what tis.

 

[House]

You are being told that the Founders' opinions don't count today, beagle9, only the Constitution and the case law and the legislation that has been built on it.

The founder's opinion is just as relevant as case law. If there is clear constitutional law, case law is irrelevant. It is only when constitutional law is not clear that either founder's opinions and/or case law comes into effect, period.

So even by revisiting this post directly, you're still wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are wrong. But . . . you argue respectfully, and I appreciate it.

You are being told that the Founders' opinions don't count today, beagle9, only the Constitution and the case law and the legislation that has been built on it.

The founder's opinion is just as relevant as case law. If there is clear constitutional law, case law is irrelevant. It is only when constitutional law is not clear that either founder's opinions and/or case law comes into effect, period.

So even by revisiting this post directly, you're still wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are wrong. But . . . you argue respectfully, and I appreciate it.

You are being told that the Founders' opinions don't count today, beagle9, only the Constitution and the case law and the legislation that has been built on it.

The founder's opinion is just as relevant as case law. If there is clear constitutional law, case law is irrelevant. It is only when constitutional law is not clear that either founder's opinions and/or case law comes into effect, period.

So even by revisiting this post directly, you're still wrong.

House you'll tire of this and either walk away or call starkey what he is.

 

[beagle9]

You are being told that the Founders' opinions don't count today, beagle9, only the Constitution and the case law and the legislation that has been built on it.

You are being told by thinking Republicans we live in the 21st century.

We play by the rules now, not 200 years ago.

I am a white man, a descendant of patriots and founders, both. The contributions of the white man will never be forgotten, but this is a republic of citizens, not just white citizens.

Why do you assume that I think that this is or should be a republic of white citizens ? I think you need to quit smoking crack is what I think..

 

[JakeStarkey]

You better go read your post, beagle9, again. This is no longer a nation of white exceptionalism, not for at least 147 years. It is now a nation of American exceptionalism.

You are being told that the Founders' opinions don't count today, beagle9, only the Constitution and the case law and the legislation that has been built on it.

You are being told by thinking Republicans we live in the 21st century.

We play by the rules now, not 200 years ago.

I am a white man, a descendant of patriots and founders, both. The contributions of the white man will never be forgotten, but this is a republic of citizens, not just white citizens.

Why do you assume that I think that this is or should be a republic of white citizens ? I think you need to quit smoking crack is what I think..

 

[beagle9]

You better go read your post, beagle9, again. This is no longer a nation of white exceptionalism, not for at least 147 years. It is now a nation of American exceptionalism.

You are being told that the Founders' opinions don't count today, beagle9, only the Constitution and the case law and the legislation that has been built on it.

You are being told by thinking Republicans we live in the 21st century.

We play by the rules now, not 200 years ago.

I am a white man, a descendant of patriots and founders, both. The contributions of the white man will never be forgotten, but this is a republic of citizens, not just white citizens.

Why do you assume that I think that this is or should be a republic of white citizens ? I think you need to quit smoking crack is what I think..

Care to link me to the post you are referring to Jakey ? I just can't wait to see where I said that I think this republic should be of white citizens only... Kidding me right ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

beagle9 makes a post whining about that we are all forgetting about our white euroAmerican background, I properly correct his whininess, and he whines more.

Look forward, beagle9, we are a different country than when we were born: is what it is.

 

[logical4u]

You better go read your post, beagle9, again. This is no longer a nation of white exceptionalism, not for at least 147 years. It is now a nation of American exceptionalism.

You are being told that the Founders' opinions don't count today, beagle9, only the Constitution and the case law and the legislation that has been built on it.

You are being told by thinking Republicans we live in the 21st century.

We play by the rules now, not 200 years ago.

I am a white man, a descendant of patriots and founders, both. The contributions of the white man will never be forgotten, but this is a republic of citizens, not just white citizens.

Why do you assume that I think that this is or should be a republic of white citizens ? I think you need to quit smoking crack is what I think..

It was a nation of "exeptionalism" in 1976. Have you ever seen what slaves did? Amazing contributions to architecture, science and agriculture were made way back then. Most "slaves" were not treated as machines, but cared for by the people that owned them; many of the "slaves" that were in that circumstance contributed ideas and assistance to their owners (and were rewarded for it, some were even freed).

 

[beagle9]

You better go read your post, beagle9, again. This is no longer a nation of white exceptionalism, not for at least 147 years. It is now a nation of American exceptionalism.

Why do you assume that I think that this is or should be a republic of white citizens ? I think you need to quit smoking crack is what I think..

It was a nation of "exeptionalism" in 1976. Have you ever seen what slaves did? Amazing contributions to architecture, science and agriculture were made way back then. Most "slaves" were not treated as machines, but cared for by the people that owned them; many of the "slaves" that were in that circumstance contributed ideas and assistance to their owners (and were rewarded for it, some were even freed).

You mean 1776 don't you ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, she does, and she is talking about the exceptions that prove the rule of the inhumanity of slavery. If she is actively preaching the "positive good of slavery" than her message is as foul as those who preached it in the 1850s.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You are being told that the Founders' opinions don't count today, beagle9, only the Constitution and the case law and the legislation that has been built on it.

The founder's opinion is just as relevant as case law. If there is clear constitutional law, case law is irrelevant. It is only when constitutional law is not clear that either founder's opinions and/or case law comes into effect, period.

So even by revisiting this post directly, you're still wrong.

No, there is Constitutional case law only as decided by the courts, and in some cases the Supreme Court. The statements of the Framers, along with other relevant sources, are used to make rulings as to the meaning of the Founding Document, which then become legal precedent and binding on other courts.

For example, in US v. Butler (1936) the Court acknowledged the Hamiltonian model of Federalism as the appropriate and accurate reading of the Constitution and the Framers’ original intent; this interpretation was reaffirmed in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937) and Helvering v. Davis (1937), and today is considered settled and accepted case law.

Needless to say those who advocate the Madisonian model disagree, and they are entitled to their position and opinion. But Madison’s statements carry no legal authority concerning matters relating to Congressional authority to tax and spend, save that as a cited source in the context of litigation addressing Congress’ taxing and spending authority.

Given the preponderance of case law and precedent in support of the Hamiltonian model, therefore, a Madisonian argument would likely not prevail, particularly in the lower courts, subject to Supreme Court rulings.

 

[beagle9]

beagle9 makes a post whining about that we are all forgetting about our white euroAmerican background, I properly correct his whininess, and he whines more.

Look forward, beagle9, we are a different country than when we were born: is what it is.

Why are you trying to paint me as a racist ?? Does this somehow help you or your rep by trying to do this ? I challenge anyone to go back through everything I have ever written here, and bring forth one racist comment or anything that pegs me as a racist on this forum, it can't be done and you know why it can't be ? It is because I am no racist, but I can see a racist from a mile away, whether it be a black racist or a white racist etc. What goes on on this forum I noticed, is there is a time slot where someone can make a charge against another, and then there is the time it takes for others to read the charge, and then the one who levy's the charge hopes that the thread will move so fast, and the attention span goes so fast that it will change so rapidly here, that no one will do their homework on the person that the charge had been levied against, so the charge will stand for the moment or just long enough is the thinking by the perp in hopes that the charge will quickly hurt the victims rep by such a charge upon the forum, before the person charged can clear oneself of the charge in the relm of these fast and furious accusations, in which turn out to be found as lies, but the perp got away with it or so he or she thinks, and that is all that matters to the perp who operates in these ways as they do upon these forums.. Pure snakes is what they are, serpents who are loosed upon this earth in these latter times in which we all have to deal with now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I hope you are not a conscious racist, but, yes, you are one if you think only white Euro-American people made this country great. As long as you keep tying American exceptionalism (inaccurately) to white Euro-American influence here (ignoring or downplaying Native American, Hispanics, Californios, Nuevo Mexicanos, the Asians, and all the others who suffered for this country) as long as you ignore the slavery, the genocide, the segregation, the dehumanizing other races and languages and religions here in America, then, yes, you are off balance.

You are a serpent if you are guilty of this, and you are when you say we are evolving somehow wrongly beyond the Euro-American influence and ignoring all the rest.

Shame on you.

 

[koshergrl]

beagle9 makes a post whining about that we are all forgetting about our white euroAmerican background, I properly correct his whininess, and he whines more.

Look forward, beagle9, we are a different country than when we were born: is what it is.

Why are you trying to paint me as a racist ?? Does this somehow help you or your rep by trying to do this ? I challenge anyone to go back through everything I have ever written here, and bring forth one racist comment or anything that pegs me as a racist on this forum, it can't be done and you know why it can't be ? It is because I am no racist, but I can see a racist from a mile away, whether it be a black racist or a white racist etc. What goes on on this forum I noticed, is there is a time slot where someone can make a charge against another, and then there is the time it takes for others to read the charge, and then the one who levy's the charge hopes that the thread will move so fast, and the attention span goes so fast that it will change so rapidly here, that no one will do their homework on the person that the charge had been levied against, so the charge will stand for the moment or just long enough is the thinking by the perp in hopes that the charge will quickly hurt the victims rep by such a charge upon the forum, before the person charged can clear oneself of the charge in the relm of these fast and furious accusations, in which turn out to be found as lies, but the perp got away with it or so he or she thinks, and that is all that matters to the perp who operates in these ways as they do upon these forums.. Pure snakes is what they are, serpents who are loosed upon this earth in these latter times in which we all have to deal with now.

just ignore jakey, everyone else does. He'll do that shit all day long. He's just a little piglet, with no value or purpose.

 

[beagle9]

I hope you are not a conscious racist, but, yes, you are one if you think only white Euro-American people made this country great. As long as you keep tying American exceptionalism (inaccurately) to white Euro-American influence here (ignoring or downplaying Native American, Hispanics, Californios, Nuevo Mexicanos, the Asians, and all the others who suffered for this country) as long as you ignore the slavery, the genocide, the segregation, the dehumanizing other races and languages and religions here in America, then, yes, you are off balance.

You are a serpent if you are guilty of this, and you are when you say we are evolving somehow wrongly beyond the Euro-American influence and ignoring all the rest.

Shame on you.

Ok, now for all you who are here and do read these accusations, do you know them to be true? Now if they are as Jakey says they are in these accusations, then I ask, no I beg any of you to prove them to be true, and this goes for you to Jakey boy. Right now your reputation is on the line here, because either you are a liar or you are not, and right now you are a complete liar within this you have levied against me, but hey some of you here are used to this sort of thing, so I know that it won't bother you who are in this way at the very least, and this by what these types of posters are performing in their character, but what I want is for everyone else who is not this way, to know Jakey to be in this way, just as he has proven to be, and then to take him afterwards with a grain of salt, for his lies are bitter and evil, but as I said he undoubtedly is used to this sort of character and bad personality trait (as a lefty) in which is held within himself, so if he can live with it, then I'm sure everyone else can try and live with it also, but know this Jakey boy, everyone knows you and you are fooling no one here, not unless they are total fools maybe.