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.
Most US carriers will not let you choose your number any more. You would need to buy a number from a number broker or from another service and port your number in. ... Google Voice will let you pick your first number for free & then charge you $3 to unlock the number to be able to port it out to a cellular carrier.Any more deflections you'd like to throw around. I chose my cell phone number from a list of available numbers. Now why don't you answer my question?
This is why we need professional lawmakers. So they put their intent into carefully chosen words. Often laws have unintended consequences when lawmakers don't fully vet the language.This is clear when using textualism, that before trying to gleen the intent of those that wrote the law, you first go by the clear reading of the text they wrote.
And they clearly rejected paying subsidies for the federal exchange. Not only did they do it once, but 7 times throughout the law. How much more clear could they make it?
.
The people to peaceably assemble, is a collective, not an individual right.
It was already ruled that bank records like deposit slips are not personal records, but business records. The same with checks. You have no right to privacy against the bank disclosing them.Any more deflections you'd like to throw around. I chose my cell phone number from a list of available numbers. Now why don't you answer my question?
.
NOPELMAO, no where in the Constitution did the founders conflate the rights of the people with States rights and powers or the powers granted to the federal government. The people always carries a meaning of individual citizens.
.
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The people to peaceably assemble, is a collective, not an individual right.
One person is not allowed to stand in the middle of the street blocking traffic. But 100 people can do so.
So let’s begin with a definition. In short, originalism is the idea that the words of the Constitution are the law, and they should be understood to mean what they meant when they were written and ratified. While this proposition is straightforward, the implications are profound. As Judge Barrett explains, the Constitution’s “meaning doesn’t change over time,” and as a judge, she does not have authority “to update it or infuse (her) own policy views into it.”
In other words, the Constitution doesn’t mean whatever you or I might want it to mean. The Constitution is not a vehicle for righting all the wrongs in society or ensuring that my preferred policies prevail even when they lose at the ballot box. The Constitution, as ratified by the people, means what it says. And constitutional interpretation requires judges to read and apply the actual written Constitution, no more and no less.
Judges looking to the original public meaning of the Constitution will not always agree. The law can be obscure and complex, and the Supreme Court decides hard questions on which smart people have probably disagreed. But originalist judges recognize an obligation to faithfully interpret the law as written even when the answer is difficult to discern.
Opinion: Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.
Originalism is a commitment to interpret the Constitution according to its original public meaning.www.jsonline.com
An opinion piece but I agree with Originalism.
Nope. The northern states argued that they should therefore count their pigs and cows as "people" since they held the same standing under law as slaves.Perhaps you should do some research on the topic. The effect is they got 40% less congressional representation than they would have, had they gotten their way of counting all slaves as a person. With the passage of the 14th Amendment they actually gained representatives.
Most US carriers will not let you choose your number any more. You would need to buy a number from a number broker or from another service and port your number in. ... Google Voice will let you pick your first number for free & then charge you $3 to unlock the number to be able to port it out to a cellular carrier.Any more deflections you'd like to throw around. I chose my cell phone number from a list of available numbers. Now why don't you answer my question?
In the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the most sweeping expansion of corporate rights yetThe people to peaceably assemble, is a collective, not an individual right.
Ther are no such things as group rights. There are only Individual rights. Rights don't come as groups. They come as individuals.
Educate yourself, you look silly. Respectfully speaking.
It was already ruled that bank records like deposit slips are not personal records, but business records. The same with checks. You have no right to privacy against the bank disclosing them.Any more deflections you'd like to throw around. I chose my cell phone number from a list of available numbers. Now why don't you answer my question?
.
Nope. The northern states argued that they should therefore count their pigs and cows as "people" since they held the same standing under law as slaves.Perhaps you should do some research on the topic. The effect is they got 40% less congressional representation than they would have, had they gotten their way of counting all slaves as a person. With the passage of the 14th Amendment they actually gained representatives.
See Scott v Sandford USSC Judge Taney opinion of the court.
It was already ruled that bank records like deposit slips are not personal records, but business records. The same with checks. You have no right to privacy against the bank disclosing them.Any more deflections you'd like to throw around. I chose my cell phone number from a list of available numbers. Now why don't you answer my question?
.
What was the name of that case?
.
In the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the most sweeping expansion of corporate rights yetThe people to peaceably assemble, is a collective, not an individual right.
Ther are no such things as group rights. There are only Individual rights. Rights don't come as groups. They come as individuals.
Educate yourself, you look silly. Respectfully speaking.
Corporations are GROUPS, and citizens united granted them collective group rights.
Perhaps you should do some research on the topic. The effect is they got 40% less congressional representation than they would have, had they gotten their way of counting all slaves as a person. With the passage of the 14th Amendment they actually gained representatives.
Nope. The northern states argued that they should therefore count their pigs and cows as "people" since they held the same standing under law as slaves.
See Scott v Sandford USSC Judge Taney opinion of the court.
You claimed the southern states lost representation. They actually got 60% more than they were entitled to under the law that existed until the 13th amendment.That decision was issued almost 80 years after the Constitution was enacted. You got anything relevant to the constitutional debates?
Hey Halfwit, Amendments to the Constitution are spelled out in the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.Amendments were specifically provided for in order to change the Constitution when needed..so much for 'originality'...You can't expect a Trumptard to have actually read the Constitution, much less comprehend it.You can't expect a Dimwinger to have actually read the Constitution, much less comprehend it.Every political faction, including conservatives, have twisted the wording to fit their agenda, but ya, tell us how you support originalism. A true Originalist would advocate gitting rid of all the Admendments that have been added through history and getting back to the 'Orignial' Constitution.So let’s begin with a definition. In short, originalism is the idea that the words of the Constitution are the law, and they should be understood to mean what they meant when they were written and ratified. While this proposition is straightforward, the implications are profound. As Judge Barrett explains, the Constitution’s “meaning doesn’t change over time,” and as a judge, she does not have authority “to update it or infuse (her) own policy views into it.”
In other words, the Constitution doesn’t mean whatever you or I might want it to mean. The Constitution is not a vehicle for righting all the wrongs in society or ensuring that my preferred policies prevail even when they lose at the ballot box. The Constitution, as ratified by the people, means what it says. And constitutional interpretation requires judges to read and apply the actual written Constitution, no more and no less.
Judges looking to the original public meaning of the Constitution will not always agree. The law can be obscure and complex, and the Supreme Court decides hard questions on which smart people have probably disagreed. But originalist judges recognize an obligation to faithfully interpret the law as written even when the answer is difficult to discern.
Opinion: Originalism, which Amy Coney Barrett espouses, simply means the words of the Constitution are the law.
Originalism is a commitment to interpret the Constitution according to its original public meaning.www.jsonline.com
An opinion piece but I agree with Originalism.
That's a lie, Amendments were specifically provided for in the original Constitution.
.
Ther are no such things as group rights. There are only Individual rights. Rights don't come as groups. They come as individuals.
Educate yourself, you look silly. Respectfully speaking.
In the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the most sweeping expansion of corporate rights yet
Corporations are GROUPS, and citizens united granted them collective group rights.
Decided in 2010, in a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited, because doing so would violate the First Amendment.Bullshit, Citizens United was about the government suppressing the release of a movie that was critical of the bitch. Similarly the government argued in the case they had the authority to suppress books that espoused political opinions.
NOPELMAO, no where in the Constitution did the founders conflate the rights of the people with States rights and powers or the powers granted to the federal government. The people always carries a meaning of individual citizens.
.
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The people to peaceably assemble, is a collective, not an individual right.
One person is not allowed to stand in the middle of the street blocking traffic. But 100 people can do so.
It was already ruled that bank records like deposit slips are not personal records, but business records. The same with checks. You have no right to privacy against the bank disclosing them.Any more deflections you'd like to throw around. I chose my cell phone number from a list of available numbers. Now why don't you answer my question?
.
What was the name of that case?
.
United States v. Miller :: 425 US 435 (1976) - Justia Law
supreme.justia.com › cases › federal
(a) The subpoenaed materials were business records of the banks, not ... in the contents of the original checks and deposit slips, since the checks are not ... (d) Access to bank records under the Act is to be controlled by "existing legal process. ...
Link?It was already ruled that bank records like deposit slips are not personal records, but business records. The same with checks. You have no right to privacy against the bank disclosing them.Any more deflections you'd like to throw around. I chose my cell phone number from a list of available numbers. Now why don't you answer my question?
.
How are corporations different from unions?In the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the most sweeping expansion of corporate rights yetThe people to peaceably assemble, is a collective, not an individual right.
Ther are no such things as group rights. There are only Individual rights. Rights don't come as groups. They come as individuals.
Educate yourself, you look silly. Respectfully speaking.
Corporations are GROUPS, and citizens united granted them collective group rights.
