Once Again, Courts Invalidate Voters Wishes

[Liability]

Like I said, you must be an anti constitutionalist. Because the design of the constitution calls for the judiciary to be the least checked branch of government. They only way their rulings can be checked is that congress pass a law that the judiciary deems is in accord with the constitution. That's the design. That's what the saying "We're a nation of laws, not men," means.

You meant to say "AS I said ...."

And no. You are quite wrong in any event.

You have an opinion which you express as fact, but beyond pointing to yourself , you have no ability to support what you just said.

No. I meant to say 'Like I said'. Also, if you believe that my description of the judiciary's role under the constutioin is my opinion. Maybe you should read this more often:

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III

No. You meant "As."

You need to learn the rules of grammar and English. Neither of those things is your strong suit.

Logic is clearly your weak suit.

And your description and related statements about the role of the Judicial branch under our Constitution is erroneous.

Maybe you should get a fuller education before you pontificate the talking points of other folks whose words you cannot comprehend.

 

[beowolfe]

Very well said.... now how about finishing the thought. Sometimes the Law is against the Republic.

No. It isn't. Sometimes the law is against the people who hold political positions in this republic, but not against the republic itself. By that I mean, the SCOTUS may rule a law as unconstitutional, but that doesn't place the congress in jeopardy for enacting it, nor the POTUS for signing it. Just like the SCOTUS isn't held responsible for a bone head decision i.e. Citizens United.

Sometimes the Law is against the Republic. The Law is not infallible. You Idolize the structure forgetting what it was built to serve. Coulda-woulda-shoulda has expired, you can't use it anymore. Take a nice deep breath of fresh air... No more bullshit in the fresh air, did you notice?

Give me an example of the law being against the republic. Maybe I'm just not understanding what you mean. And no, I don't idolize the law. But as the far right is so fond of saying, America is the best country in the history of man. So, apparently, there has been no other govermental system that has served its people as well as this democratic republic.

 

[beowolfe]

You meant to say "AS I said ...."

And no. You are quite wrong in any event.

You have an opinion which you express as fact, but beyond pointing to yourself , you have no ability to support what you just said.

No. I meant to say 'Like I said'. Also, if you believe that my description of the judiciary's role under the constutioin is my opinion. Maybe you should read this more often:

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III

No. You meant "As."

You need to learn the rules of grammar and English. Neither of those things is your strong suit.

Logic is clearly your weak suit.

And your description and related statements about the role of the Judicial branch under our Constitution is erroneous.

Maybe you should get a fuller education before you pontificate the talking points of other folks whose words you cannot comprehend.

If this was an English class, then you'd be correct. But since its a discussion forum, then any expression that is generally understood is acceptable. Now, if you want to teach English, you are free to leave the forum and go apply to your local school system.

 

[Intense]

No. It isn't. Sometimes the law is against the people who hold political positions in this republic, but not against the republic itself. By that I mean, the SCOTUS may rule a law as unconstitutional, but that doesn't place the congress in jeopardy for enacting it, nor the POTUS for signing it. Just like the SCOTUS isn't held responsible for a bone head decision i.e. Citizens United.

Sometimes the Law is against the Republic. The Law is not infallible. You Idolize the structure forgetting what it was built to serve. Coulda-woulda-shoulda has expired, you can't use it anymore. Take a nice deep breath of fresh air... No more bullshit in the fresh air, did you notice?

Give me an example of the law being against the republic. Maybe I'm just not understanding what you mean. And no, I don't idolize the law. But as the far right is so fond of saying, America is the best country in the history of man. So, apparently, there has been no other govermental system that has served its people as well as this democratic republic.

I attribute the phenomena to the recognition of Unalienable Right's. The most profound Statement in history. There are too many Beowolfe, you are being naive. Voter Registration and Election Law are embarrassments, that is an easy finger to point. We have gone so far astray, the original intent is barely even recognizable any more. You are all about the process. The Process is about Itself, it has lost sight of everything else. In truth It would not like what it saw in the mirror.

 

[Liability]

No. I meant to say 'Like I said'. Also, if you believe that my description of the judiciary's role under the constutioin is my opinion. Maybe you should read this more often:

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III

No. You meant "As."

You need to learn the rules of grammar and English. Neither of those things is your strong suit.

Logic is clearly your weak suit.

And your description and related statements about the role of the Judicial branch under our Constitution is erroneous.

Maybe you should get a fuller education before you pontificate the talking points of other folks whose words you cannot comprehend.

If this was an English class, then you'd be correct. But since its a discussion forum, then any expression that is generally understood is acceptable. Now, if you want to teach English, you are free to leave the forum and go apply to your local school system.

And, I'm free to point out how wrong you are on even something as basic as grammar. That flaccid writing ability is reflected in many things you say. It seems to suggest, at least in your case, for example, that you have a flaccid thinking process, too.

But back to the more important point. Your grasp of the valid role of the Judiciary is severely hampered by your general ignorance.

 

[sangha]

Very well said.... now how about finishing the thought. Sometimes the Law is against the Republic.

No. It isn't. Sometimes the law is against the people who hold political positions in this republic, but not against the republic itself. By that I mean, the SCOTUS may rule a law as unconstitutional, but that doesn't place the congress in jeopardy for enacting it, nor the POTUS for signing it. Just like the SCOTUS isn't held responsible for a bone head decision i.e. Citizens United.

Sometimes the Law is against the Republic. The Law is not infallible. You Idolize the structure forgetting what it was built to serve. Coulda-woulda-shoulda has expired, you can't use it anymore. Take a nice deep breath of fresh air... No more bullshit in the fresh air, did you notice?

Nonsense. A law is never "against the Republic". There is nothing in the Constitution or Common Law that invalidates a law for being "against the Republic". Law are either constitutional or unconstitutional

The rest of your post is as meaningless as the phrase "against the republic"

 

[sangha]

You meant to say "AS I said ...."

And no. You are quite wrong in any event.

You have an opinion which you express as fact, but beyond pointing to yourself , you have no ability to support what you just said.

No. I meant to say 'Like I said'. Also, if you believe that my description of the judiciary's role under the constutioin is my opinion. Maybe you should read this more often:

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III

No. You meant "As."

You need to learn the rules of grammar and English. Neither of those things is your strong suit.

Logic is clearly your weak suit.

And your description and related statements about the role of the Judicial branch under our Constitution is erroneous.

Maybe you should get a fuller education before you pontificate the talking points of other folks whose words you cannot comprehend.

No, he meant "like"

You need to learn about common american colloquialisms. Being less of an ass would be nice also because everyone knows there's nothing more pitiful than a grammar Nazi

Your knowledge of the Constitution and the role of the Judiciary is underwhelming

 

[sangha]

No. You meant "As."

You need to learn the rules of grammar and English. Neither of those things is your strong suit.

Logic is clearly your weak suit.

And your description and related statements about the role of the Judicial branch under our Constitution is erroneous.

Maybe you should get a fuller education before you pontificate the talking points of other folks whose words you cannot comprehend.

If this was an English class, then you'd be correct. But since its a discussion forum, then any expression that is generally understood is acceptable. Now, if you want to teach English, you are free to leave the forum and go apply to your local school system.

And, I'm free to point out how wrong you are on even something as basic as grammar. That flaccid writing ability is reflected in many things you say. It seems to suggest, at least in your case, for example, that you have a flaccid thinking process, too.

But back to the more important point. Your grasp of the valid role of the Judiciary is severely hampered by your general ignorance.

A mind that can only understand one style of writing is a pretty weak mind and a sign of limited interpersonal experience

 

[Intense]

No. It isn't. Sometimes the law is against the people who hold political positions in this republic, but not against the republic itself. By that I mean, the SCOTUS may rule a law as unconstitutional, but that doesn't place the congress in jeopardy for enacting it, nor the POTUS for signing it. Just like the SCOTUS isn't held responsible for a bone head decision i.e. Citizens United.

Sometimes the Law is against the Republic. The Law is not infallible. You Idolize the structure forgetting what it was built to serve. Coulda-woulda-shoulda has expired, you can't use it anymore. Take a nice deep breath of fresh air... No more bullshit in the fresh air, did you notice?

Nonsense. A law is never "against the Republic". There is nothing in the Constitution or Common Law that invalidates a law for being "against the Republic". Law are either constitutional or unconstitutional

The rest of your post is as meaningless as the phrase "against the republic"

You are too lost in Bureaucracy to even have a clue. Thats the whole point. Government is not God. Government has not mastered perfection. The Founders knew that, You have been programed your whole life to deny it. Why is that? Who does it serve? The Amendment Process was constructed specifically to rectify unforeseen problems. You think Government can do no wrong, cannot grow too large? Who are you fooling besides yourself. You have turned checks and balances into the three headed Hydra taking terms feeding off of us. Stop denying the Abuse, the Tyranny, the Usurpation of Power.

 

[sangha]

Sometimes the Law is against the Republic. The Law is not infallible. You Idolize the structure forgetting what it was built to serve. Coulda-woulda-shoulda has expired, you can't use it anymore. Take a nice deep breath of fresh air... No more bullshit in the fresh air, did you notice?

Nonsense. A law is never "against the Republic". There is nothing in the Constitution or Common Law that invalidates a law for being "against the Republic". Law are either constitutional or unconstitutional

The rest of your post is as meaningless as the phrase "against the republic"

You are too lost in Bureaucracy to even have a clue. Thats the whole point. Government is not God. Government has not mastered perfection. The Founders knew that, You have been programed your whole life to deny it. Why is that? Who does it serve? The Amendment Process was constructed specifically to rectify unforeseen problems. You think Government can do no wrong, cannot grow too large? Who are you fooling besides yourself. You have turned checks and balances into the three headed Hydra taking terms feeding off of us. Stop denying the Abuse, the Tyranny, the Usurpation of Power.

I have to give you some props. That was the least wingnutty way to avoid the issue I have ever seen.

It's nutty, but at least it wasn't wingnutty!

 

[Intense]

Nonsense. A law is never "against the Republic". There is nothing in the Constitution or Common Law that invalidates a law for being "against the Republic". Law are either constitutional or unconstitutional

The rest of your post is as meaningless as the phrase "against the republic"

You are too lost in Bureaucracy to even have a clue. Thats the whole point. Government is not God. Government has not mastered perfection. The Founders knew that, You have been programed your whole life to deny it. Why is that? Who does it serve? The Amendment Process was constructed specifically to rectify unforeseen problems. You think Government can do no wrong, cannot grow too large? Who are you fooling besides yourself. You have turned checks and balances into the three headed Hydra taking terms feeding off of us. Stop denying the Abuse, the Tyranny, the Usurpation of Power.

I have to give you some props. That was the least wingnutty way to avoid the issue I have ever seen.

It's nutty, but at least it wasn't wingnutty!

I've evaded nothing. Constitutional or Non Constitutional is a matter of interpretation, or the flavor of the day. Harm, Damage, Loss, which can be documented, is more than a matter of opinion. Bad Law Harms the Republic. Get you head out of your ass and ask Your Self, why is it so important for you to defend Injustice. I point out that where it is found it should be removed. You look for excuses to maintain the status quo. The mechanism was constructed to serve the True interest of the People. Where flaw is found, there is a need to rectify the flaw, not make excuses for it. Fix it.

 

[sangha]

You are too lost in Bureaucracy to even have a clue. Thats the whole point. Government is not God. Government has not mastered perfection. The Founders knew that, You have been programed your whole life to deny it. Why is that? Who does it serve? The Amendment Process was constructed specifically to rectify unforeseen problems. You think Government can do no wrong, cannot grow too large? Who are you fooling besides yourself. You have turned checks and balances into the three headed Hydra taking terms feeding off of us. Stop denying the Abuse, the Tyranny, the Usurpation of Power.

I have to give you some props. That was the least wingnutty way to avoid the issue I have ever seen.

It's nutty, but at least it wasn't wingnutty!

I've evaded nothing. Constitutional or Non Constitutional is a matter of interpretation, or the flavor of the day. Harm, Damage, Loss, which can be documented, is more than a matter of opinion. Bad Law Harms the Republic. Get you head out of your ass and ask Your Self, why is it so important for you to defend Injustice. I point out that where it is found it should be removed. You look for excuses to maintain the status quo. The mechanism was constructed to serve the True interest of the People. Where flaw is found, there is a need to rectify the flaw, not make excuses for it. Fix it.

WOrds do not mean what you demand they mean

While there are laws that are more harmful than helpful, no law is "against the republic". To be "against" something, one must have a mind. Laws do not have minds. They are not for or against anything. The people who put the laws in place (ie we, the people and our elected representatives) have minds, so they can be "against the repubic", but a bad law does not prove their intent and so therefore, even a "bad law" is not a sign of anyone or anything being "against the republic".

 

[Intense]

I have to give you some props. That was the least wingnutty way to avoid the issue I have ever seen.

It's nutty, but at least it wasn't wingnutty!

I've evaded nothing. Constitutional or Non Constitutional is a matter of interpretation, or the flavor of the day. Harm, Damage, Loss, which can be documented, is more than a matter of opinion. Bad Law Harms the Republic. Get you head out of your ass and ask Your Self, why is it so important for you to defend Injustice. I point out that where it is found it should be removed. You look for excuses to maintain the status quo. The mechanism was constructed to serve the True interest of the People. Where flaw is found, there is a need to rectify the flaw, not make excuses for it. Fix it.

WOrds do not mean what you demand they mean

While there are laws that are more harmful than helpful, no law is "against the republic". To be "against" something, one must have a mind. Laws do not have minds. They are not for or against anything. The people who put the laws in place (ie we, the people and our elected representatives) have minds, so they can be "against the repubic", but a bad law does not prove their intent and so therefore, even a "bad law" is not a sign of anyone or anything being "against the republic".

Failure to address a grievance that is legitimate, does harm, failure to amend the Law when it does harm is acting against the Welfare of the Republic. You act like once something is decided, it is set in stone. It is not. You act like once you pass a law, everything must bend to it, including reality. That is not the case. You are contrary to our Founders expectations of us. You compound error with layers of excuses and misdirection. Serve Justice, that is Paramount to the vain concerns a broken structure that you refuse to maintain or repair, instead you continue to build on flawed logic, falsely attempting to justify, merely because of the size of the monstrosity. The blind cannot lead the blind. Rectify and build on solid foundation. It is not rocket science. If it were, we would never have gotten off the ground. Stop fooling, stop the charade and Govern.

 

[hboats]

Why am I not surprised that sangha totally skipped this post and has not posted any proof?

Rick

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/dnc.v.rnc/2004 Daschle TRO.pdf

Read it and weep

So, you prove that you are in Truthdoesn'tmatter's league for intelligence.

This is not a consent decree. And you keep saying that

The GOP went to court arguing that they had a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

And your little link here proves that you are a bold faced liar.

Not only is this not a consent decree, but the GOP never once said that they had a "constitutional right to intimidate voters."

Anything else you'd like to prove you lied about?

Rick

Sangha is nothing but a liar, and a bad one at that.

I knew there was a reason sangha wouldn't post proof, and come to find out it's because sangha lied the whole time about what he was claiming.

I point out that sangha is a flat out liar and presto, sangha ignores the post and moves on like nothing was said. I wonder why that is?

It's a waste of time and energy to try to have a debate with someone that wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face. Sangha is that person. Facts mean nothing to Sangha.

Rick

 

[PoliticalChic]

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/dnc.v.rnc/2004 Daschle TRO.pdf

Read it and weep

So, you prove that you are in Truthdoesn'tmatter's league for intelligence.

This is not a consent decree. And you keep saying that

The GOP went to court arguing that they had a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

And your little link here proves that you are a bold faced liar.

Not only is this not a consent decree, but the GOP never once said that they had a "constitutional right to intimidate voters."

Anything else you'd like to prove you lied about?

Rick

Sangha is nothing but a liar, and a bad one at that.

I knew there was a reason sangha wouldn't post proof, and come to find out it's because sangha lied the whole time about what he was claiming.

I point out that sangha is a flat out liar and presto, sangha ignores the post and moves on like nothing was said. I wonder why that is?

It's a waste of time and energy to try to have a debate with someone that wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face. Sangha is that person. Facts mean nothing to Sangha.

Rick

But, Rick, how can we blame the guy???

It has proven successful for so long, what with the protection the stenographers in the MSM have given libs for so long....


Your calling for proof, and the ease of finding counter proof in the Internet dooms this strategy in the long run...

On the other hand, those without honor, will proceed as our friend Sangie, as Coulter pointed out:

"…every Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton feels the need to defend duplicity, adultery, lying about adultery, sexual harassment, rape, perjury, obstruction of justice, kicking the can of global Islamofascism down the road for eight years, and so on."

 

[hboats]

Gosh, I wonder why sangha is all of a sudden absent from this thread.

No, actually I know why sangha is absent, but it's humorous to point it out.

Rick

 

[Intense]

Like the water bucket scene in The Wizard of Oz?

 

[sangha]

I guess you missed the substantive posts I made showing how Illinois and NY law disenfranchise felons and those in jail, and how Cook County Jail inmates are being given registrations and ballots in violation of the law.

You wanna go back and look at them, or would you rather continue pretending they aren't there?

I suppose you missed the post about how the GOP is THE ONLY PARTY that court of law has found to have engaged in voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP went to court arguing that they had a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

You wanna go back and look at it, or would you rather continue pretending it didnt happen?

two words

Black Panthers

You left out the part where they weren't found guilty of anything in a court of law. All you have is your fantasy..still no facts coming from the conjob

On the other hand, the RNC has had a court find that they did engage in voter intimidation and other forms of electoral fraud, a fact you'll continue to run away from like the coward that you are.

 

[Meister]

I suppose you missed the post about how the GOP is THE ONLY PARTY that court of law has found to have engaged in voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP went to court arguing that they had a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

You wanna go back and look at it, or would you rather continue pretending it didnt happen?

two words

Black Panthers

You left out the part where they weren't found guilty of anything in a court of law. All you have is your fantasy..still no facts coming from the conjob

On the other hand, the RNC has had a court find that they did engage in voter intimidation and other forms of electoral fraud, a fact you'll continue to run away from like the coward that you are.

It never even got to court, dumbfuck. The nuetered Holder squelched the idea, anyone involved in law stated that those two were toast in a court of law.

 

[sangha]

Being precise is not being petty. Many DO believe that things have been removed from the COTuS, that is incorrect.

As for you claim that wanting to change the COTUS means you don't love the COTUS, I say excellent, thank you for agreeing with us that Obama wanting to fundamentally transform the US means he doesn't love the US.

Back to making stuff up so soon? I never said " wanting to change the COTUS means you don't love the COTUS", nor did I say "Obama wanting to fundamentally transform the US means he doesn't love the US."

Once again, you've proven that if a conservative doesn't make stuff up, he won't have anything to say.

PS - Majority DOES rule in this country. IF for example a majority of people wanted to banish black people, it COULD be done, there is no mechanism to stop such an Amendment from being voted in, of course the odds of it happening are slim to none and slim just left, BUT your claim that the majority do not rule is incorrect.

Umm, constitutional amendments require more than a majority vote.

oh, you DID say it.

I didn't say a simple majority vote. Of course it's not that simple. Only YOU are that simple, well you and some of your brethren and sisters.

And here is conjob, once again talking out of both sides of his mouth.

First, he says

Majority DOES rule in this country

Then it's

IF for example a majority of people wanted to banish black people, it COULD be done,

No, if 50% +1 wanted to ban blacks, it could NOT be done because it doesnt take a majority; It takes a supermajority.

But I guess, in this case, your desire for being precise is absent in this case