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

[progressive hunter]

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

The militia is irrelevant. "Shall not be infringed" couldn't be any clearer.

Have you ever studied contracts? The rule of contractual interpretation is that all language within a contract has operative meaning. You aren't allowed to just ignore sections you don't like.

I would go so far as to say you've managed to dowdify the 2nd amendment.

and yet youre doing that exact thing,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes, and the Founding Fathers say "shall not be infringed" means what it says.

They also said "the president shall be impeached"

youre changing the subject because you are loosing the debate,,

 

[meaner gene]

\
Have you ever studied contracts? The rule of contractual interpretation is that all language within a contract has operative meaning. You aren't allowed to just ignore sections you don't like.

I would go so far as to say you've managed to dowdify the 2nd amendment.

and yet youre doing that exact thing,,,

Another person who has never had to interpret a contract.

Have you decided which side you're on when it comes to the Constitution, is it interpreted, or absolute literated?

Pick one, not part of one and part of the other.

 

[meaner gene]

You have to either interpret all of the constitution, or none of it. Kinda like being pregnant.

And if you reject interpretation, you'll never get military grade weapons that don't use flint and a frizen.

 

[progressive hunter]

\
Have you ever studied contracts? The rule of contractual interpretation is that all language within a contract has operative meaning. You aren't allowed to just ignore sections you don't like.

I would go so far as to say you've managed to dowdify the 2nd amendment.

and yet youre doing that exact thing,,,

Another person who has never had to interpret a contract.

Have you decided which side you're on when it comes to the Constitution, is it interpreted, or absolute literated?

Pick one, not part of one and part of the other.

contracts are plainly written just like the constitution,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

You have to either interpret all of the constitution, or none of it. Kinda like being pregnant.

And if you reject interpretation, you'll never get military grade weapons that don't use flint and a frizen.

I already have military grade weapons,, its just that some are unlawfully restricted,,,

 

[meaner gene]

contracts are plainly written just like the constitution,,,

I was hoping you wouldn't say that. Because you just admitted the constitution is interpreted, just like contracts are.

They also require they be self defining for words with ambiguous meaning.

So without interptation the commander in chief is not the head of the military, since that word is never used in the Constitution. It only specifies the Army and Navy, and Militia of the several states.

 

[meaner gene]

I already have military grade weapons,, its just that some are unlawfully restricted,,,

Don't you mean unconstitutionally restricted. Because by the pecking order I posted, laws can't be unlawful.

 

[progressive hunter]

contracts are plainly written just like the constitution,,,

I was hoping you wouldn't say that. Because you just admitted the constitution is interpreted, just like contracts are.

They also require they be self defining for words with ambiguous meaning.

So the commander in chief is not the head of the military, since that word is never used in the Constitution. It only specifies the Army and Navy, and Militia of the several states.

they are two different things that have nothing in common other than why they are written,,

I have to wonder,, are you wearing pants?? cause it has to be hard for you to function when you arent told what to think,,

 

[progressive hunter]

I already have military grade weapons,, its just that some are unlawfully restricted,,,

Don't you mean unconstitutionally restricted. Because by the pecking order I posted, laws can't be unlawful.

of course laws can be unlawful,,

 

[meaner gene]

cause it has to be hard for you to function when you arent told what to think,,

Actually i'm being told how to interpret the constitution, and how to interpret contracts. There are rules governing both.

Unless the contract is shown to be using specific technical language, it will be interpreted using ordinary meaning. Courts will often utilize the four corners rule, which means that the interpretation will only come from what is contained in the contract unless the language is ambiguous.

 

[progressive hunter]

cause it has to be hard for you to function when you arent told what to think,,

Actually i'm being told how to interpret the constitution, and how to interpret contracts. There are rules governing both.

Unless the contract is shown to be using specific technical language, it will be interpreted using ordinary meaning. Courts will often utilize the four corners rule, which means that the interpretation will only come from what is contained in the contract unless the language is ambiguous.

like I said,, you had to be told what to think,,,

the constitution needs no interpretation cause its written in simple english,,

 

[meaner gene]

of course laws can be unlawful,,

How are conflicts between constitutional, statutory, case, and administrative laws resolved? The federal Constitution is the supreme authority. The validity of laws is determined by whether they violate authority granted by constitutions or legislative bodies or conflict with laws enacted by higher authorities.

 

[progressive hunter]

of course laws can be unlawful,,

How are conflicts between constitutional, statutory, case, and administrative laws resolved? The federal Constitution is the supreme authority. The validity of laws is determined by whether they violate authority granted by constitutions or legislative bodies or conflict with laws enacted by higher authorities.

you spinning so much its getting hard to understand what youre saying,,,

 

[meaner gene]

like I said,, you had to be told what to think,,,

the constitution needs no interpretation cause its written in simple english,,

Yet the constitution has been interpreted thousands of times, because the "simple language" is not simple.

Example, when the constitution refers to "the people", what people are they talking about.
1) All residents in the US
2) All under the jurisdiction of the US
3) All legal residents in the US
4) All citizens of the US
5) All residents over the age of 18
6) All residents without legal disqualification
Pick one.

 

[progressive hunter]

like I said,, you had to be told what to think,,,

the constitution needs no interpretation cause its written in simple english,,

Yet the constitution has been interpreted thousands of times, because the "simple language" is not simple.

Example, when the constitution refers to "the people", what people are they talking about.
1) All residents in the US
2) All under the jurisdiction of the US
3) All legal residents in the US
4) All citizens of the US

Pick one.

so once again you need someone else to tell you what to think,,,

 

[meaner gene]

so once again you need someone else to tell you what to think,,,

Example, when the constitution refers to "the people", what people are they talking about.
1) All residents in the US
2) All under the jurisdiction of the US
3) All legal residents in the US
4) All citizens of the US
5) All residents over the age of 18
6) All residents without legal disqualification
Pick one.
Why are you running away from answering what should be a simple question.

 

[progressive hunter]

so once again you need someone else to tell you what to think,,,

Example, when the constitution refers to "the people", what people are they talking about.
1) All residents in the US
2) All under the jurisdiction of the US
3) All legal residents in the US
4) All citizens of the US
5) All residents over the age of 18
6) All residents without legal disqualification
Pick one.
Why are you running away from answering what should be a simple question.

which one do you think it means??

to me its pretty clear,,

 

[sartre play]

The founders ended up broke, unlike many of our government leaders who start out with just decent paying jobs and years later end up very very rich.

 

[meaner gene]

so once again you need someone else to tell you what to think,,,

You have just defined what getting an education means.

Education is about learning skills and knowledge. It also means helping people to learn how to do things and support them to think about what they learn. It's also important for educators to teach ways to find and use information.