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.
Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.
It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.
Even more empirical evidence that the far left is clueless as to what the Constitution means. It is just not in their programming!
you have already proven that you understand neither our body of caselaw nor the authority of the Court.
so you might want to learn something before you start throwing stones.
Oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again..
Sorry each and every time the far left posts they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue about the US constitution other than what their far left programming tells them it is..
Stare decisis
Latin for "to stand by things decided." Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992).
Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.No, actually the Constitution was designed to expand powers over the failed Articles of Confederation.
It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.
Even more empirical evidence that the far left is clueless as to what the Constitution means. It is just not in their programming!
you have already proven that you understand neither our body of caselaw nor the authority of the Court.
so you might want to learn something before you start throwing stones.
Oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again..
Sorry each and every time the far left posts they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue about the US constitution other than what their far left programming tells them it is..
Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.
It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.
Even more empirical evidence that the far left is clueless as to what the Constitution means. It is just not in their programming!
you have already proven that you understand neither our body of caselaw nor the authority of the Court.
so you might want to learn something before you start throwing stones.
Oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again..
Sorry each and every time the far left posts they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue about the US constitution other than what their far left programming tells them it is..
except that you're the braindead twit who doesn't understand our legal system.
here... learn something, wackadoodle....
Stare decisis
Latin for "to stand by things decided." Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992).
Stare decisis Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
what is actually ironic is a rightwingnut toon spewing nonsense while insulting the people who actually understand our legal system.
go learn something. seriously.
If our system is socialist why are we the worst at providing health care than any other developed nation?
Why do Canadians and citizens of a lot of other countries come here for treatment if their system is so much better than ours?
the numbers aren't that great. do some"? probably if they have unlimited financial resources.
and that is the point. there is a difference between the ability of our medical personnel and our ability to DELIVER health care to people who need it.
one shouldn't have to be a millionaire to be treated for a chronic illness.
Like this millionaire?
"A federal appeals court in Boston today upheld a judge’s ruling that a transsexual inmate convicted of murder is entitled to a taxpayer-funded sex change operation as treatment for her severe gender identity disorder."
thanks for the deflection. it simply has nothing to do with what we were discussing. surely you can do better than that.
And what post have you made that proves that you being far left understand the constitution?
Can you think in relative terms? The Articles are irrelevant. The Constitution still placed limits on the central authority. It does not authorize welfare programs.
It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.
Even more empirical evidence that the far left is clueless as to what the Constitution means. It is just not in their programming!
you have already proven that you understand neither our body of caselaw nor the authority of the Court.
so you might want to learn something before you start throwing stones.
Oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again..
Sorry each and every time the far left posts they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue about the US constitution other than what their far left programming tells them it is..
right... all the jurists over the last 200 years should just go give back their law licenses.
moron.
It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.
Even more empirical evidence that the far left is clueless as to what the Constitution means. It is just not in their programming!
you have already proven that you understand neither our body of caselaw nor the authority of the Court.
so you might want to learn something before you start throwing stones.
Oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again..
Sorry each and every time the far left posts they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue about the US constitution other than what their far left programming tells them it is..
except that you're the braindead twit who doesn't understand our legal system.
here... learn something, wackadoodle....
Stare decisis
Latin for "to stand by things decided." Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992).
Stare decisis Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
what is actually ironic is a rightwingnut toon spewing nonsense while insulting the people who actually understand our legal system.
go learn something. seriously.
My oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again and proves that they do not understand the constitution..
Why do Canadians and citizens of a lot of other countries come here for treatment if their system is so much better than ours?
the numbers aren't that great. do some"? probably if they have unlimited financial resources.
and that is the point. there is a difference between the ability of our medical personnel and our ability to DELIVER health care to people who need it.
one shouldn't have to be a millionaire to be treated for a chronic illness.
Like this millionaire?
"A federal appeals court in Boston today upheld a judge’s ruling that a transsexual inmate convicted of murder is entitled to a taxpayer-funded sex change operation as treatment for her severe gender identity disorder."
thanks for the deflection. it simply has nothing to do with what we were discussing. surely you can do better than that.
And what post have you made that proves that you being far left understand the constitution?
to someone like you?
probably nothing that would require any exercise of reading comprehension on your part.
if you could actually read and comprehend, i'd suggest, as I already said, starting with Marbury v Madison.
now run along. you have a lot of homework to do.
It authorizes whatever can be passed and survive judicial review.
Even more empirical evidence that the far left is clueless as to what the Constitution means. It is just not in their programming!
you have already proven that you understand neither our body of caselaw nor the authority of the Court.
so you might want to learn something before you start throwing stones.
Oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again..
Sorry each and every time the far left posts they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue about the US constitution other than what their far left programming tells them it is..
right... all the jurists over the last 200 years should just go give back their law licenses.
moron.
So in other words you have no posts showing that you truly understand the constitution beyond what your far left programming tells you it is..
Well we already knew that one..
Even more empirical evidence that the far left is clueless as to what the Constitution means. It is just not in their programming!
you have already proven that you understand neither our body of caselaw nor the authority of the Court.
so you might want to learn something before you start throwing stones.
Oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again..
Sorry each and every time the far left posts they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue about the US constitution other than what their far left programming tells them it is..
except that you're the braindead twit who doesn't understand our legal system.
here... learn something, wackadoodle....
Stare decisis
Latin for "to stand by things decided." Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992).
Stare decisis Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
what is actually ironic is a rightwingnut toon spewing nonsense while insulting the people who actually understand our legal system.
go learn something. seriously.
My oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again and proves that they do not understand the constitution..
your repetition of the same idiotic statement proves nothing but that you're an idiot and a troll.
when you can come back with some type of actual constitutional argument that doesn't pretend an idiot like you decides what is constitutional, i'll be interested in what you have to say.
until then... run along.
Even more empirical evidence that the far left is clueless as to what the Constitution means. It is just not in their programming!
you have already proven that you understand neither our body of caselaw nor the authority of the Court.
so you might want to learn something before you start throwing stones.
Oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again..
Sorry each and every time the far left posts they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue about the US constitution other than what their far left programming tells them it is..
right... all the jurists over the last 200 years should just go give back their law licenses.
moron.
So in other words you have no posts showing that you truly understand the constitution beyond what your far left programming tells you it is..
Well we already knew that one..
what a braindead troll... *yawn*
i'm going to figure you're still in middle school and have serious comprehension issues.
Yes, that's what I said. You're not stupid all the way.Okay, you're too stupid to continue with. I'll end here.Oh my good lord. You said my argument was a straw man argument. That's what I was referring to. And now you say otherwise.Sure, when you're done arguing with straw man arguments.
So you are suggesting that the U.S. Constitution, the law of the land, is a straw man argument? That's amusing. You should take that joke to Vegas. I'm sure it will get a few laughs.
Lefties are the reason that arguments with lefties are always in circles.
It is a straw man argument since no one here but you made any claim about coercion. But since you brought it up, the Constitution does, in fact, provide the government with enforcement powers. You didn't know this? I'm not surprised, since you have obviously never even bothered to read it.
I am not the one who brought up coercion; we had been discussing welfare programs for some time previous.
And the government has enforcement powers? You don't say. What a revelation.
Erm, you said:
"The Constitution includes a job description for the officers and judges of the United States. It enumerates their powers. Coercion is not one of them.
Or can you show the class otherwise?"
I did. Any more stupid questions? No? Well, alrighty then.
btw, kosh, you freak.... i'm not far left.
you have already proven that you understand neither our body of caselaw nor the authority of the Court.
so you might want to learn something before you start throwing stones.
Oh my the irony impaired far left strikes again..
Sorry each and every time the far left posts they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue about the US constitution other than what their far left programming tells them it is..
right... all the jurists over the last 200 years should just go give back their law licenses.
moron.
So in other words you have no posts showing that you truly understand the constitution beyond what your far left programming tells you it is..
Well we already knew that one..
what a braindead troll... *yawn*
i'm going to figure you're still in middle school and have serious comprehension issues.
Yes the irony impaired far left just drones on and on..
Yes the far let is often boring, but I am only as good as those far left programmed droneposts allow..
How pathetic! Do you people really plan how to live your lives in the 21st century based on the ramblings of syphilitic slave owners?!
There is a reason why there are so many amendments.
So even if it mentioned christ, it wouldnt matter.
btw, kosh, you freak.... i'm not far left.
Yes you are, but that is ok many on the far left often say they are not, but all of their postings show otherwise.
So where are all your posts condemning Obama for his illegal wars and his dissolving Due Process..
Please show them all se we can see!
btw, kosh, you freak.... i'm not far left.
Yes you are, but that is ok many on the far left often say they are not, but all of their postings show otherwise.
So where are all your posts condemning Obama for his illegal wars and his dissolving Due Process..
Please show them all se we can see!
btw, kosh, you freak.... i'm not far left.
Yes you are, but that is ok many on the far left often say they are not, but all of their postings show otherwise.
So where are all your posts condemning Obama for his illegal wars and his dissolving Due Process..
Please show them all se we can see!
your premise is a fallacy. again, you would have to understand the constitution, our caselaw and our laws for any conversation to be meantingful.
your idiocy, trolling and Obama-derangement syndrome indicate none of those.
you really should probably let the grown ups talk. you only prove the idiocy of the rabid right. and there are rightwingers hwere who actually present an intellectual challenge.
you aren't one of them, little boy.
btw, kosh, you freak.... i'm not far left.
Yes you are, but that is ok many on the far left often say they are not, but all of their postings show otherwise.
So where are all your posts condemning Obama for his illegal wars and his dissolving Due Process..
Please show them all se we can see!
Failure on her part to provide you any or her justification of how what Obama did as not being the same will be more proof of what you said.
btw, kosh, you freak.... i'm not far left.
Yes you are, but that is ok many on the far left often say they are not, but all of their postings show otherwise.
So where are all your posts condemning Obama for his illegal wars and his dissolving Due Process..
Please show them all se we can see!
your premise is a fallacy. again, you would have to understand the constitution, our caselaw and our laws for any conversation to be meantingful.
your idiocy, trolling and Obama-derangement syndrome indicate none of those.
you really should probably let the grown ups talk. you only prove the idiocy of the rabid right. and there are rightwingers hwere who actually present an intellectual challenge.
you aren't one of them, little boy.
You're puckering up to Obama's ass proves what he claimed. That you use Liberal buzzwords makes it even more apparent.
