Political question for Leftists. What do you not like about the Constitution?

[meaner gene]

it is written in absolute and literal,,

So do you believe the President's role as Commander in Chief stretches to the Air Force and newly created Space Force? The Constitution clearly provides him that responsibility regarding our land and sea forces.

those are arms of the military,,

The constitution in absolute and literal terms doesn't not give the president command over space or air forces, the constitution limits that to land and sea.

By literal interpretation.

 

[progressive hunter]

it is written in absolute and literal,,

So do you believe the President's role as Commander in Chief stretches to the Air Force and newly created Space Force? The Constitution clearly provides him that responsibility regarding our land and sea forces.

those are arms of the military,,

The constitution in absolute and literal terms doesn't not give the president command over space or air forces, the constitution limits that to land and sea.

By literal interpretation.

your problem is interpretation,,,

he is in charges of the armed forces,,

 

[rightwinger]

I’m cool with it as written

After all, Liberals did write the Constituition

No Founder agrees with the modern left. They WARNED us about you

Hate to tell you

They are all dead

 

[meaner gene]

your problem is interpretation,,,

he is in charges of the armed forces,,

But the constitution doesn't say that.

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States .

I said only, because the constitutions granting of powers also prohibits powers not granted.

 

[my2¢]

it is written in absolute and literal,,

So do you believe the President's role as Commander in Chief stretches to the Air Force and newly created Space Force? The Constitution clearly provides him that responsibility regarding our land and sea forces.

those are arms of the military,,

Yes they are. Yet the Constitution wasn't amended to include air and space forces. Thus you're implying that the Constitution isn't literal but rather subject to interpretation as you're giving the President power over forces that didn't even exist when the Constitution was written.

If one wants to take the Constitution literally, that's fine. I just don't trust the honesty of cherry-pickers.

 

[surada]

How about the 2nd Amendment? Do you agree with that?

I agree with it as written, and as interpreted for over 200 years.

I disagree with the Scalia interpretation where "the people" refer to different groups of people, in different parts of the constitution.

Leftwing justices have "interpreted" it out of existence.

No, the courts have preserved and followed the Constitution by prohibiting conservatives from using the power and authority of the state to violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

FYI

"In total, there have been 408 voter suppression bills proposed in state legislatures as of May 19th. 25 have been signed into law so far."

Of course "voter suppression" refers to any bill designed to prevent election fraud.

No its designed to prevent citizens from voting.

Marxist bunk.

I don'thave a problem with the Constitution. What are YOU upset about?

Do you support any restrictions to owning a gun?

Yes.. We have pilot's licenses, driver's licenses, doctor, dentist, nurses licenses.. Even barbers have to be licensed.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. Franklin had slaves. Jon Jay had slaves. Alexander Hamilton had slaves.

John Adams, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine never owned slaves.

Thomas Paine didn't sign the Constitution, so you found two out of 39.

 

[progressive hunter]

your problem is interpretation,,,

he is in charges of the armed forces,,

But the constitution doesn't say that.

It makes him commander in chief of the land and sea forces only.

I said only, because the constitutions granting of powers also prohibits powers not granted.

OK I will give you that,, take them from his authority,, now what about the 2nd A and shall not be infringed?? are all guns now legal for civilians??

 

[progressive hunter]

it is written in absolute and literal,,

So do you believe the President's role as Commander in Chief stretches to the Air Force and newly created Space Force? The Constitution clearly provides him that responsibility regarding our land and sea forces.

those are arms of the military,,

Yes they are. Yet the Constitution wasn't amended to include air and space forces. Thus you're implying that the Constitution isn't literal but rather subject to interpretation as you're giving the President power over forces that didn't even exist when the Constitution was written.

If one wants to take the Constitution literally, that's fine. I just don't trust the honesty of cherry-pickers.

read post #248

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The court awarded it to itself.

Don't you know that history?

lol

Obviously you don’t.

For centuries the Anglo-American judicial tradition has recognized the interpretive authority of the courts – an authority the Framers codified in Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

How about the 2nd Amendment? Do you agree with that?

I agree with it as written, and as interpreted for over 200 years.

I disagree with the Scalia interpretation where "the people" refer to different groups of people, in different parts of the constitution.

Leftwing justices have "interpreted" it out of existence.

No, the courts have preserved and followed the Constitution by prohibiting conservatives from using the power and authority of the state to violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

FYI

"In total, there have been 408 voter suppression bills proposed in state legislatures as of May 19th. 25 have been signed into law so far."

Of course "voter suppression" refers to any bill designed to prevent election fraud.

No its designed to prevent citizens from voting.

Marxist bunk.

I don'thave a problem with the Constitution. What are YOU upset about?

Do you support any restrictions to owning a gun?

Yes.. We have pilot's licenses, driver's licenses, doctor, dentist, nurses licenses.. Even barbers have to be licensed.

Do you need a license to own a printing press or a website?

In most of the cases you listed, I disagree that licenses are needed. Occupational licensing is a scheme to keep competitors out the market.

 

[bripat9643]

The court awarded it to itself.

Don't you know that history?

lol

Obviously you don’t.

For centuries the Anglo-American judicial tradition has recognized the interpretive authority of the courts – an authority the Framers codified in Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

Obviously I do, because that's exactly how it happened.

It was stupid and dishonest then, and it's stupid and dishonest now. Tradition is hardly a good reason to follow any law.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How about the 2nd Amendment? Do you agree with that?

I agree with it as written, and as interpreted for over 200 years.

I disagree with the Scalia interpretation where "the people" refer to different groups of people, in different parts of the constitution.

Leftwing justices have "interpreted" it out of existence.

No, the courts have preserved and followed the Constitution by prohibiting conservatives from using the power and authority of the state to violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

FYI

"In total, there have been 408 voter suppression bills proposed in state legislatures as of May 19th. 25 have been signed into law so far."

Of course "voter suppression" refers to any bill designed to prevent election fraud.

No its designed to prevent citizens from voting.

Marxist bunk.

I don'thave a problem with the Constitution. What are YOU upset about?

Do you support any restrictions to owning a gun?

Yes.. We have pilot's licenses, driver's licenses, doctor, dentist, nurses licenses.. Even barbers have to be licensed.

Where in the constitution does it say the right to cut someone's hair or fly a airplane?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've nothing against the Constitution. My problem is with people that want to cherry-pick what they want to take obsolute literally.

Yes, the wrongheaded nonsense of ‘originalism.’

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

What's "wrong headed" about originalism?

That you and others on the right don’t like how the Supreme Court has ruled – establishing case law that prohibits conservatives from using the power and authority of the state to disadvantage through force of law citizens conservatives fear and hate – doesn’t mean the Supreme Court is ‘wrong’ or that the Constitution’s case law is ‘invalid.’

 

[bripat9643]

Political question for Leftists. What do you not like about the Constitution?​

The fact that none of you conservative types have read it.

That is NOT TRUE
They have read the Second Amendment.

Well, half of it maybe

26 words out of something like 4500.

You don't agree with the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, of any of the others, for that matter.

I may not agree with your twisted, low IQ interpretation of them but I do agree with them as they are written.

No you don't. What part of "shall not be abridged" do you agree with?

You're ignoring what I said.

And the word is "infringed".

Just proof that you haven't really read it.

Either way, do you support outlawing so-called "assault weapons?"

What's that got to do with the discussion at hand?

Where are the Militias?

The first sentence is explanatory. It has no legal implications.

You claimed you support the Constitution, not prove it.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you agree with?

The first sentence iss explanatory? Who told you that nonsense?

legal scholars.

Nope. RWNJ agenda driven whackos.

You mean the Founding Fathers?

 

[bripat9643]

I've nothing against the Constitution. My problem is with people that want to cherry-pick what they want to take obsolute literally.

Yes, the wrongheaded nonsense of ‘originalism.’

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

What's "wrong headed" about originalism?

That you and others on the right don’t like how the Supreme Court has ruled – establishing case law that prohibits conservatives from using the power and authority of the state to disadvantage through force of law citizens conservatives fear and hate – doesn’t mean the Supreme Court is ‘wrong’ or that the Constitution’s case law is ‘invalid.’

Yeah, it pretty much does.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I’m cool with it as written

After all, Liberals did write the Constituition

No Founder agrees with the modern left. They WARNED us about you

Hate to tell you

They are all dead

Soon you will be too. What's your point. You claimed they agree with you. THAT IS A LIE. They fought a revolution against Statists

 

[meaner gene]

OK I will give you that,, take them from his authority,, now what about the 2nd A and shall not be infringed?? are all guns now legal for civilians??

Well that's where Scalia is in conflict with the literal of the Constiution.

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States .

The president is commander in chief of the state militia. And just who would that be? Obviously militia can't be all able bodied men within the state as Scalia defined them.

As the president is commander in chief of the "well regulated militia" of the several states.

 

[AMart]

Right now, I am unaware of any attempts by Liberals to change the Constitution

What I do see is Conservatives attempting to undermine the a constitution and deny the vote of the people in favor of backroom deals by partisan legislatures.
I also see conservatives undermining the Free Press and interfering with their oversight of Government

There is an attempt. It's been going on for decades and it is way past due.

Equal Rights Amendment

The Equal Rights Amendment is a constitutional amendment that will guarantee legal gender equality for women and men. This website is dedicated to educating and inspiring citizens to ratify the ERA, which was written by equal rights activist Alice Paul in 1923.

www.equalrightsamendment.org

Equal rights already exist for men and women.

 

[Crepitus]

Political question for Leftists. What do you not like about the Constitution?​

The fact that none of you conservative types have read it.

That is NOT TRUE
They have read the Second Amendment.

Well, half of it maybe

26 words out of something like 4500.

You don't agree with the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, of any of the others, for that matter.

I may not agree with your twisted, low IQ interpretation of them but I do agree with them as they are written.

No you don't. What part of "shall not be abridged" do you agree with?

You're ignoring what I said.

And the word is "infringed".

Just proof that you haven't really read it.

Either way, do you support outlawing so-called "assault weapons?"

What's that got to do with the discussion at hand?

Where are the Militias?

The first sentence is explanatory. It has no legal implications.

You claimed you support the Constitution, not prove it.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you agree with?

The first sentence iss explanatory? Who told you that nonsense?

legal scholars.

Nope. RWNJ agenda driven whackos.

You mean the Founding Fathers?

No. Do you even have a brain?