Should an unelected Supreme Court overturn a State constitution as 'unconstitutional'? (Missouri)

[wjmacguffin]

The Civil War proved that the states are subservient to the federal government. The Supreme Court determines (or they should) whether laws are Constitutional and therefore an amendment to a state constitution has to pass muster in the U.S. Constitution which is the law of the land. It should be noted that the so-called "separation of church and state" statute does not appear in the Constitution. It was a creation of the Supreme Court and the majority opinion was written by a former KKK member appointed by FDR.

You're right about "separation" not appearing in the 1st Amendment. But religious neutrality requires separation. You cannot treat all faiths equally if you're in bed with one.

Where does the Constitution say States must remain neutral on religion?

In the 1st Amendment, just not in those exact words. It says that no law can respect an established religion nor stop people from freely worshiping one. If you promote one faith over others, you're respecting it. But if you attack one faith and not others, you're respecting all the others over that one. Hence, neutrality being the law.

States have to be neutral because they are still held by the US Constitution. That's why states also cannot violate free press or institute poll taxes.

Government Neutrality in Religious Disputes

 

[wjmacguffin]

Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.

What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.

Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Unless I misunderstand geography, someone living in California is both a citizen of California and the United States of America, what with CA being a state and all. That means that someone has the rights given to him by the US Constitution, which trumps the California constitution or laws.

That's how a federal system works. That's why we scrapped the Articles of Confederation and went with the US Constitution and its stronger federal gov't. So even if every single person in CA voted to make Christianity illegal, they cannot. CA law cannot say Republicans are outlawed. And CA constitutional amendments cannot deny citizens the right to marry the consenting adult they love.

 

[g5000]

Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.

What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.

Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

 

[Bush92]

Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.

What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.

Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

 

[g5000]

Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.

What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.

Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

 

[Bush92]

Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.

What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.

Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

No I said I do not like it when Court misinterpreted it and ran roughshod over a vote of the citizens of a state. That is wrong.

 

[Bush92]

Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.

What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.

Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

Equal protection of the laws does not apply to a sexual preference.

 

[Bush92]

Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.

What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.

Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

So you thing if a guy wants to screw an animal he is protected under 14th Amendment? BTW this bullshit amendment needs to be repealed.

 

[g5000]

Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

So you thing if a guy wants to screw an animal he is protected under 14th Amendment?

Nope. You are being especially retarded today. You clearly have no understanding of the Constitution at all, which is par for the course for pseudocons who only love the Constitution when it suits them.

 

[Bush92]

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

So you thing if a guy wants to screw an animal he is protected under 14th Amendment?

Nope. You are being especially retarded today. You clearly have no understanding of the Constitution at all, which is par for the course for pseudocons who only love the Constitution when it suits them.

You are ignorant of the Constitution. The Roberts Court is the worse since Warren.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't remember the case name, but it's not hypothetical. A farmer was fined for growing grains for his own use on his property because the feds wanted to support the price of grains by restricting it's growth. The court upheld the fines even though the grain never entered commerce. So using that precedent, if the government decides they need to support the prices of vegetables, they could fine you for growing your own. In fact that same principle was used against an individual growing marijuana for personal consumption even though the government was essentially supporting and protecting an illegal market. Scalia really stepped on his dick on that one.

So all you have is bullshit and I'm expected to take YOUR word that it was an actual case before SCOTUS involved and a Scalia decision for a hook? Nothing new from you. Once a liar, always a fucking liar, Tex! You're still all fucking hat and no cattle!

In Wickard vs Filburn (1942), for example, the Court upheld a $117 penalty imposed on a Ohio farmer for growing wheat on 12 more acres than he was permitted to under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The Court relied on Wickard in the 2005 case of Gonzales v Raich, upholding the power of Congress to authorized seizure of doctor-prescribed marijuana allowed under the laws of California and other states. The Court in Gonzales noted that local use of medical marijuana had a cumulative effect on the black market for marijuana.

The Federal Power to Regulate Commerce

Now feel free to fuck off and die liar.

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do.

This is your horseshit that you contrived in your post #66. A false premise...a lie you lying bastard! What you present as proof of what you asserted when goaded into is Wickard v. Filburn. Was that case about a fucking vegetable garden you ignorant FUCK, or about a violation of exceeding the acreage of wheat planted beyond the farmer's quota limit? You're the lying son-of-a-bitch, Tex, and are just projecting your own fucking defective behavior as shown in your sig line.

You know I never agreed to your proposition to post DD 214's and when I didn't you accused me of reneging on an agreement I never made and you couldn't find in any of my posts. You're a despicable, no good fucking LIAR who'll say anything to look taller, you little handed shrunken shit hill suffering from little man syndrome! You've eaten the shit and are paying the price now, you fucking slime ball!

Well you dishonorable piece of shit, the farmer grew the additional acreage for his personal use and never planned to put it in the market place, if you bothered to actually read the case you would know that. The case was also not about marijuana but they used the precedent to disallow the home growth of medical marijuana. They could easily use it to prohibit the home production of virtually anything. So take your little hissy fit and shove it up you ass, you've been proven wrong, AGAIN!!!!

I first read the case years ago when I referenced it in a paper regarding the New Deal expansion of the Commerce Clause, shit for brains. Was it a vegetable garden or did the farmer overplant wheat acreage beyond his allotted limit? Don't try to cover your fucking lying nature with simpleton logic, or piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You set up the initial premise with a bold face lie. Live with the truth for a change you piece of filth!

Actually, OH DISHONORABLE ONE, I said the precedent set by that case would allow the example I provided and it would. Just like they used it to seize the marijuana plants because the cumulative effect would impact the black market for marijuana. I think maybe hooked on phonics it the thing you really need, you know, to get the old comprehension level up. ROFLMFAO

 

[OKTexas]

The Civil War proved that the states are subservient to the federal government. The Supreme Court determines (or they should) whether laws are Constitutional and therefore an amendment to a state constitution has to pass muster in the U.S. Constitution which is the law of the land. It should be noted that the so-called "separation of church and state" statute does not appear in the Constitution. It was a creation of the Supreme Court and the majority opinion was written by a former KKK member appointed by FDR.

You're right about "separation" not appearing in the 1st Amendment. But religious neutrality requires separation. You cannot treat all faiths equally if you're in bed with one.

Where does the Constitution say States must remain neutral on religion?

In the 1st Amendment, just not in those exact words. It says that no law can respect an established religion nor stop people from freely worshiping one. If you promote one faith over others, you're respecting it. But if you attack one faith and not others, you're respecting all the others over that one. Hence, neutrality being the law.

States have to be neutral because they are still held by the US Constitution. That's why states also cannot violate free press or institute poll taxes.

Government Neutrality in Religious Disputes

And the first 5 words of the 1st Amendment are?

 

[Tresha91203]

I am Lutheran.

That said, this is a toughie. Can the public use the playground? That would be the biggest question for me. If it is predominantly for church use, then I think there's a problem. Are the student mostly from the church or community? If the church is agreeing to public use if it is given the grant, I think the state has a problem.

The majority of its students are not Lutheran. The playground is open to the public and widely used by the community.

 

[OKTexas]

Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.

What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.

Of course the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state Constitution. If a state decided to bring back slavery, or outlaw all guns, or ban Fox News, the Supreme Court is our last defense.

The should not be able to overturn propositions voted on by the people of California that said marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination. Faghadist marriage was illegal at the time the 14th was ratified and time didn't change the 14th, 5 fucked up judges did. No where in the Constitution does it give judges the power to engage in social engineering.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

So all you have is bullshit and I'm expected to take YOUR word that it was an actual case before SCOTUS involved and a Scalia decision for a hook? Nothing new from you. Once a liar, always a fucking liar, Tex! You're still all fucking hat and no cattle!

In Wickard vs Filburn (1942), for example, the Court upheld a $117 penalty imposed on a Ohio farmer for growing wheat on 12 more acres than he was permitted to under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The Court relied on Wickard in the 2005 case of Gonzales v Raich, upholding the power of Congress to authorized seizure of doctor-prescribed marijuana allowed under the laws of California and other states. The Court in Gonzales noted that local use of medical marijuana had a cumulative effect on the black market for marijuana.

The Federal Power to Regulate Commerce

Now feel free to fuck off and die liar.

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do.

This is your horseshit that you contrived in your post #66. A false premise...a lie you lying bastard! What you present as proof of what you asserted when goaded into is Wickard v. Filburn. Was that case about a fucking vegetable garden you ignorant FUCK, or about a violation of exceeding the acreage of wheat planted beyond the farmer's quota limit? You're the lying son-of-a-bitch, Tex, and are just projecting your own fucking defective behavior as shown in your sig line.

You know I never agreed to your proposition to post DD 214's and when I didn't you accused me of reneging on an agreement I never made and you couldn't find in any of my posts. You're a despicable, no good fucking LIAR who'll say anything to look taller, you little handed shrunken shit hill suffering from little man syndrome! You've eaten the shit and are paying the price now, you fucking slime ball!

Well you dishonorable piece of shit, the farmer grew the additional acreage for his personal use and never planned to put it in the market place, if you bothered to actually read the case you would know that. The case was also not about marijuana but they used the precedent to disallow the home growth of medical marijuana. They could easily use it to prohibit the home production of virtually anything. So take your little hissy fit and shove it up you ass, you've been proven wrong, AGAIN!!!!

I first read the case years ago when I referenced it in a paper regarding the New Deal expansion of the Commerce Clause, shit for brains. Was it a vegetable garden or did the farmer overplant wheat acreage beyond his allotted limit? Don't try to cover your fucking lying nature with simpleton logic, or piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You set up the initial premise with a bold face lie. Live with the truth for a change you piece of filth!

Actually, OH DISHONORABLE ONE, I said the precedent set by that case would allow the example I provided and it would. Just like they used it to seize the marijuana plants because the cumulative effect would impact the black market for marijuana. I think maybe hooked on phonics it the thing you really need, you know, to get the old comprehension level up. ROFLMFAO

You're much like the Orange One, shit for brains. Lying through your teeth doesn't bother you at all and you project your own despicable behavior on to others.

You set up a false premise with a lie then stuck with it just like the Ego-in-Chief does! Was Wickard v. Filburn about a vegetable garden like you said initially? And when did the vegetable garden which was actually an acreage planted to wheat turn into Mary Jane and what did the MJ have to do with a vegetable garden, you bloody fool? Only in your mind to get away from discussing how Wickard didn't pertain to a fucking vegetable garden that the Feds, allegedly according to you, disallowed!

You wrote this;

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do.

But you don't want to even acknowledge you wrote something so FUCKIN STUPID and now lie, yet again, with the claim, "...I said the precedent set by that case would allow the example I provided and it would."! What the Hell did a fictitious vegetable garden get any precedential ruling set by SCOTUS, you lame shit?

You wrote it asshole, and you OWN IT. You can't wiggle away from it and I'm sure as fuck not going to let you get away with another damn lie like the one you penned in your sig line, you piece of lying filth! You initiated this exchange with your Texas sized serving of bullshit on toast, and I'm going to serve it back double as long as you continue to lie!

 

[OKTexas]

In Wickard vs Filburn (1942), for example, the Court upheld a $117 penalty imposed on a Ohio farmer for growing wheat on 12 more acres than he was permitted to under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The Court relied on Wickard in the 2005 case of Gonzales v Raich, upholding the power of Congress to authorized seizure of doctor-prescribed marijuana allowed under the laws of California and other states. The Court in Gonzales noted that local use of medical marijuana had a cumulative effect on the black market for marijuana.

The Federal Power to Regulate Commerce

Now feel free to fuck off and die liar.

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do.

This is your horseshit that you contrived in your post #66. A false premise...a lie you lying bastard! What you present as proof of what you asserted when goaded into is Wickard v. Filburn. Was that case about a fucking vegetable garden you ignorant FUCK, or about a violation of exceeding the acreage of wheat planted beyond the farmer's quota limit? You're the lying son-of-a-bitch, Tex, and are just projecting your own fucking defective behavior as shown in your sig line.

You know I never agreed to your proposition to post DD 214's and when I didn't you accused me of reneging on an agreement I never made and you couldn't find in any of my posts. You're a despicable, no good fucking LIAR who'll say anything to look taller, you little handed shrunken shit hill suffering from little man syndrome! You've eaten the shit and are paying the price now, you fucking slime ball!

Well you dishonorable piece of shit, the farmer grew the additional acreage for his personal use and never planned to put it in the market place, if you bothered to actually read the case you would know that. The case was also not about marijuana but they used the precedent to disallow the home growth of medical marijuana. They could easily use it to prohibit the home production of virtually anything. So take your little hissy fit and shove it up you ass, you've been proven wrong, AGAIN!!!!

I first read the case years ago when I referenced it in a paper regarding the New Deal expansion of the Commerce Clause, shit for brains. Was it a vegetable garden or did the farmer overplant wheat acreage beyond his allotted limit? Don't try to cover your fucking lying nature with simpleton logic, or piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You set up the initial premise with a bold face lie. Live with the truth for a change you piece of filth!

Actually, OH DISHONORABLE ONE, I said the precedent set by that case would allow the example I provided and it would. Just like they used it to seize the marijuana plants because the cumulative effect would impact the black market for marijuana. I think maybe hooked on phonics it the thing you really need, you know, to get the old comprehension level up. ROFLMFAO

You're much like the Orange One, shit for brains. Lying through your teeth doesn't bother you at all and you project your own despicable behavior on to others.

You set up a false premise with a lie then stuck with it just like the Ego-in-Chief does! Was Wickard v. Filburn about a vegetable garden like you said initially? And when did the vegetable garden which was actually an acreage planted to wheat turn into Mary Jane and what did the MJ have to do with a vegetable garden, you bloody fool? Only in your mind to get away from discussing how Wickard didn't pertain to a fucking vegetable garden that the Feds, allegedly according to you, disallowed!

You wrote this;

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do.

But you don't want to even acknowledge you wrote something so FUCKIN STUPID and now lie, yet again, with the claim, "...I said the precedent set by that case would allow the example I provided and it would."! What the Hell did a fictitious vegetable garden get any precedential ruling set by SCOTUS, you lame shit?

You wrote it asshole, and you OWN IT. You can't wiggle away from it and I'm sure as fuck not going to let you get away with another damn lie like the one you penned in your sig line, you piece of lying filth! You initiated this exchange with your Texas sized serving of bullshit on toast, and I'm going to serve it back double as long as you continue to lie!

Simple yes or no question, would the two cases I cited allow congress to pass a law to outlaw vegetable gardens to support the commercial prices of vegetables?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

This is your horseshit that you contrived in your post #66. A false premise...a lie you lying bastard! What you present as proof of what you asserted when goaded into is Wickard v. Filburn. Was that case about a fucking vegetable garden you ignorant FUCK, or about a violation of exceeding the acreage of wheat planted beyond the farmer's quota limit? You're the lying son-of-a-bitch, Tex, and are just projecting your own fucking defective behavior as shown in your sig line.

You know I never agreed to your proposition to post DD 214's and when I didn't you accused me of reneging on an agreement I never made and you couldn't find in any of my posts. You're a despicable, no good fucking LIAR who'll say anything to look taller, you little handed shrunken shit hill suffering from little man syndrome! You've eaten the shit and are paying the price now, you fucking slime ball!

Well you dishonorable piece of shit, the farmer grew the additional acreage for his personal use and never planned to put it in the market place, if you bothered to actually read the case you would know that. The case was also not about marijuana but they used the precedent to disallow the home growth of medical marijuana. They could easily use it to prohibit the home production of virtually anything. So take your little hissy fit and shove it up you ass, you've been proven wrong, AGAIN!!!!

I first read the case years ago when I referenced it in a paper regarding the New Deal expansion of the Commerce Clause, shit for brains. Was it a vegetable garden or did the farmer overplant wheat acreage beyond his allotted limit? Don't try to cover your fucking lying nature with simpleton logic, or piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You set up the initial premise with a bold face lie. Live with the truth for a change you piece of filth!

Actually, OH DISHONORABLE ONE, I said the precedent set by that case would allow the example I provided and it would. Just like they used it to seize the marijuana plants because the cumulative effect would impact the black market for marijuana. I think maybe hooked on phonics it the thing you really need, you know, to get the old comprehension level up. ROFLMFAO

You're much like the Orange One, shit for brains. Lying through your teeth doesn't bother you at all and you project your own despicable behavior on to others.

You set up a false premise with a lie then stuck with it just like the Ego-in-Chief does! Was Wickard v. Filburn about a vegetable garden like you said initially? And when did the vegetable garden which was actually an acreage planted to wheat turn into Mary Jane and what did the MJ have to do with a vegetable garden, you bloody fool? Only in your mind to get away from discussing how Wickard didn't pertain to a fucking vegetable garden that the Feds, allegedly according to you, disallowed!

You wrote this;

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do.

But you don't want to even acknowledge you wrote something so FUCKIN STUPID and now lie, yet again, with the claim, "...I said the precedent set by that case would allow the example I provided and it would."! What the Hell did a fictitious vegetable garden get any precedential ruling set by SCOTUS, you lame shit?

You wrote it asshole, and you OWN IT. You can't wiggle away from it and I'm sure as fuck not going to let you get away with another damn lie like the one you penned in your sig line, you piece of lying filth! You initiated this exchange with your Texas sized serving of bullshit on toast, and I'm going to serve it back double as long as you continue to lie!

Simple yes or no question, would the two cases I cited allow congress to pass a law to outlaw vegetable gardens to support the commercial prices of vegetables?

Non Sequitur you lying sack of dog shit! The topic now and has been your lying about anything and everything because you err and then lie about anything and everything to cover your errors and your following lies to cover your past lies. Did you write this in your post #66 or did someone else hack your account and write it;

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.

That's pure unadulterated Texas longhorn BULLSHIT, your stupidest lie and when I asked what SCOTUS decision that was you replied with this bit of horseshit;

I don't remember the case name, but it's not hypothetical.

OH I DON'T REMEMBER! How fucking convenient at that moment. Then you followed on with this shit sundae just 36 minutes later;

A farmer was fined for growing grains for his own use on his property because the feds wanted to support the price of grains by restricting it's growth. The court upheld the fines even though the grain never entered commerce.

That bit was bullshit from the get go because the farmer was penalized for planting wheat in excess of his allotted acreage quota you lying idiot and you'd have known that if you had read the SCOTUS decision, liar! Even today the DOA will come in and plow down tobacco in excess of the farmers allotted acreage shit for brains and fine the violation!

Agricultural quotas are STILL CONSTITUTIONAL to effect under the Commerce Clause you ignorant fuck! And they have held up over time in spite of their personal and seemingly draconian impacts. You're the one who's never read Wickham v. Filburn you lying sack of dog shit to the degree necessary for understanding! Your latter day conclusions are from your imagination and a paragraph from a Libertarian piece of garbage, and not from knowledge of case law you simple lying turd!

All smoke and not bloody fire from you, Tex. You're just a lying wannabe asshole who can never be trusted for the truth of anything!! Perhaps you are channeling the Orange One, oh Texas shit for brains, and trying to match his ability to lie enthusiastically and with ease?

 

[OKTexas]

Well you dishonorable piece of shit, the farmer grew the additional acreage for his personal use and never planned to put it in the market place, if you bothered to actually read the case you would know that. The case was also not about marijuana but they used the precedent to disallow the home growth of medical marijuana. They could easily use it to prohibit the home production of virtually anything. So take your little hissy fit and shove it up you ass, you've been proven wrong, AGAIN!!!!

I first read the case years ago when I referenced it in a paper regarding the New Deal expansion of the Commerce Clause, shit for brains. Was it a vegetable garden or did the farmer overplant wheat acreage beyond his allotted limit? Don't try to cover your fucking lying nature with simpleton logic, or piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You set up the initial premise with a bold face lie. Live with the truth for a change you piece of filth!

Actually, OH DISHONORABLE ONE, I said the precedent set by that case would allow the example I provided and it would. Just like they used it to seize the marijuana plants because the cumulative effect would impact the black market for marijuana. I think maybe hooked on phonics it the thing you really need, you know, to get the old comprehension level up. ROFLMFAO

You're much like the Orange One, shit for brains. Lying through your teeth doesn't bother you at all and you project your own despicable behavior on to others.

You set up a false premise with a lie then stuck with it just like the Ego-in-Chief does! Was Wickard v. Filburn about a vegetable garden like you said initially? And when did the vegetable garden which was actually an acreage planted to wheat turn into Mary Jane and what did the MJ have to do with a vegetable garden, you bloody fool? Only in your mind to get away from discussing how Wickard didn't pertain to a fucking vegetable garden that the Feds, allegedly according to you, disallowed!

You wrote this;

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do.

But you don't want to even acknowledge you wrote something so FUCKIN STUPID and now lie, yet again, with the claim, "...I said the precedent set by that case would allow the example I provided and it would."! What the Hell did a fictitious vegetable garden get any precedential ruling set by SCOTUS, you lame shit?

You wrote it asshole, and you OWN IT. You can't wiggle away from it and I'm sure as fuck not going to let you get away with another damn lie like the one you penned in your sig line, you piece of lying filth! You initiated this exchange with your Texas sized serving of bullshit on toast, and I'm going to serve it back double as long as you continue to lie!

Simple yes or no question, would the two cases I cited allow congress to pass a law to outlaw vegetable gardens to support the commercial prices of vegetables?

Non Sequitur you lying sack of dog shit! The topic now and has been your lying about anything and everything because you err and then lie about anything and everything to cover your errors and your following lies to cover your past lies. Did you write this in your post #66 or did someone else hack your account and write it;

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.

That's pure unadulterated Texas longhorn BULLSHIT, your stupidest lie and when I asked what SCOTUS decision that was you replied with this bit of horseshit;

I don't remember the case name, but it's not hypothetical.

OH I DON'T REMEMBER! How fucking convenient at that moment. Then you followed on with this shit sundae just 36 minutes later;

A farmer was fined for growing grains for his own use on his property because the feds wanted to support the price of grains by restricting it's growth. The court upheld the fines even though the grain never entered commerce.

That bit was bullshit from the get go because the farmer was penalized for planting wheat in excess of his allotted acreage quota you lying idiot and you'd have known that if you had read the SCOTUS decision, liar! Even today the DOA will come in and plow down tobacco in excess of the farmers allotted acreage shit for brains and fine the violation!

Agricultural quotas are STILL CONSTITUTIONAL to effect under the Commerce Clause you ignorant fuck! And they have held up over time in spite of their personal and seemingly draconian impacts. You're the one who's never read Wickham v. Filburn you lying sack of dog shit to the degree necessary for understanding! Your latter day conclusions are from your imagination and a paragraph from a Libertarian piece of garbage, and not from knowledge of case law you simple lying turd!

All smoke and not bloody fire from you, Tex. You're just a lying wannabe asshole who can never be trusted for the truth of anything!! Perhaps you are channeling the Orange One, oh Texas shit for brains, and trying to match his ability to lie enthusiastically and with ease?

So the answer is YES?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I first read the case years ago when I referenced it in a paper regarding the New Deal expansion of the Commerce Clause, shit for brains. Was it a vegetable garden or did the farmer overplant wheat acreage beyond his allotted limit? Don't try to cover your fucking lying nature with simpleton logic, or piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. You set up the initial premise with a bold face lie. Live with the truth for a change you piece of filth!

Actually, OH DISHONORABLE ONE, I said the precedent set by that case would allow the example I provided and it would. Just like they used it to seize the marijuana plants because the cumulative effect would impact the black market for marijuana. I think maybe hooked on phonics it the thing you really need, you know, to get the old comprehension level up. ROFLMFAO

You're much like the Orange One, shit for brains. Lying through your teeth doesn't bother you at all and you project your own despicable behavior on to others.

You set up a false premise with a lie then stuck with it just like the Ego-in-Chief does! Was Wickard v. Filburn about a vegetable garden like you said initially? And when did the vegetable garden which was actually an acreage planted to wheat turn into Mary Jane and what did the MJ have to do with a vegetable garden, you bloody fool? Only in your mind to get away from discussing how Wickard didn't pertain to a fucking vegetable garden that the Feds, allegedly according to you, disallowed!

You wrote this;

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do.

But you don't want to even acknowledge you wrote something so FUCKIN STUPID and now lie, yet again, with the claim, "...I said the precedent set by that case would allow the example I provided and it would."! What the Hell did a fictitious vegetable garden get any precedential ruling set by SCOTUS, you lame shit?

You wrote it asshole, and you OWN IT. You can't wiggle away from it and I'm sure as fuck not going to let you get away with another damn lie like the one you penned in your sig line, you piece of lying filth! You initiated this exchange with your Texas sized serving of bullshit on toast, and I'm going to serve it back double as long as you continue to lie!

Simple yes or no question, would the two cases I cited allow congress to pass a law to outlaw vegetable gardens to support the commercial prices of vegetables?

Non Sequitur you lying sack of dog shit! The topic now and has been your lying about anything and everything because you err and then lie about anything and everything to cover your errors and your following lies to cover your past lies. Did you write this in your post #66 or did someone else hack your account and write it;

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.

That's pure unadulterated Texas longhorn BULLSHIT, your stupidest lie and when I asked what SCOTUS decision that was you replied with this bit of horseshit;

I don't remember the case name, but it's not hypothetical.

OH I DON'T REMEMBER! How fucking convenient at that moment. Then you followed on with this shit sundae just 36 minutes later;

A farmer was fined for growing grains for his own use on his property because the feds wanted to support the price of grains by restricting it's growth. The court upheld the fines even though the grain never entered commerce.

That bit was bullshit from the get go because the farmer was penalized for planting wheat in excess of his allotted acreage quota you lying idiot and you'd have known that if you had read the SCOTUS decision, liar! Even today the DOA will come in and plow down tobacco in excess of the farmers allotted acreage shit for brains and fine the violation!

Agricultural quotas are STILL CONSTITUTIONAL to effect under the Commerce Clause you ignorant fuck! And they have held up over time in spite of their personal and seemingly draconian impacts. You're the one who's never read Wickham v. Filburn you lying sack of dog shit to the degree necessary for understanding! Your latter day conclusions are from your imagination and a paragraph from a Libertarian piece of garbage, and not from knowledge of case law you simple lying turd!

All smoke and not bloody fire from you, Tex. You're just a lying wannabe asshole who can never be trusted for the truth of anything!! Perhaps you are channeling the Orange One, oh Texas shit for brains, and trying to match his ability to lie enthusiastically and with ease?

So the answer is YES?

So the answer is YES?

Non Sequitur - A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

~~Oxford English Dictionary~~

You're still a dodging, deflecting, dissembling and lying jackass. You're pinned so your lying ass turns once again to avoiding the topic of your lies and distortions by trying to pivot and getting someone to follow you idiocy. Fuck you very much little man, you have shown your true mettle by your avoidance of or even responding to the truth of your dishonest and slimy conduct!

 

[OKTexas]

Actually, OH DISHONORABLE ONE, I said the precedent set by that case would allow the example I provided and it would. Just like they used it to seize the marijuana plants because the cumulative effect would impact the black market for marijuana. I think maybe hooked on phonics it the thing you really need, you know, to get the old comprehension level up. ROFLMFAO

You're much like the Orange One, shit for brains. Lying through your teeth doesn't bother you at all and you project your own despicable behavior on to others.

You set up a false premise with a lie then stuck with it just like the Ego-in-Chief does! Was Wickard v. Filburn about a vegetable garden like you said initially? And when did the vegetable garden which was actually an acreage planted to wheat turn into Mary Jane and what did the MJ have to do with a vegetable garden, you bloody fool? Only in your mind to get away from discussing how Wickard didn't pertain to a fucking vegetable garden that the Feds, allegedly according to you, disallowed!

You wrote this;

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do.

But you don't want to even acknowledge you wrote something so FUCKIN STUPID and now lie, yet again, with the claim, "...I said the precedent set by that case would allow the example I provided and it would."! What the Hell did a fictitious vegetable garden get any precedential ruling set by SCOTUS, you lame shit?

You wrote it asshole, and you OWN IT. You can't wiggle away from it and I'm sure as fuck not going to let you get away with another damn lie like the one you penned in your sig line, you piece of lying filth! You initiated this exchange with your Texas sized serving of bullshit on toast, and I'm going to serve it back double as long as you continue to lie!

Simple yes or no question, would the two cases I cited allow congress to pass a law to outlaw vegetable gardens to support the commercial prices of vegetables?

Non Sequitur you lying sack of dog shit! The topic now and has been your lying about anything and everything because you err and then lie about anything and everything to cover your errors and your following lies to cover your past lies. Did you write this in your post #66 or did someone else hack your account and write it;

Under current precedent the federal government has the authority to say you can't have a vegetable garden for your own consumption and can fine you if you do. The court gave them that authority, not the Constitution.

That's pure unadulterated Texas longhorn BULLSHIT, your stupidest lie and when I asked what SCOTUS decision that was you replied with this bit of horseshit;

I don't remember the case name, but it's not hypothetical.

OH I DON'T REMEMBER! How fucking convenient at that moment. Then you followed on with this shit sundae just 36 minutes later;

A farmer was fined for growing grains for his own use on his property because the feds wanted to support the price of grains by restricting it's growth. The court upheld the fines even though the grain never entered commerce.

That bit was bullshit from the get go because the farmer was penalized for planting wheat in excess of his allotted acreage quota you lying idiot and you'd have known that if you had read the SCOTUS decision, liar! Even today the DOA will come in and plow down tobacco in excess of the farmers allotted acreage shit for brains and fine the violation!

Agricultural quotas are STILL CONSTITUTIONAL to effect under the Commerce Clause you ignorant fuck! And they have held up over time in spite of their personal and seemingly draconian impacts. You're the one who's never read Wickham v. Filburn you lying sack of dog shit to the degree necessary for understanding! Your latter day conclusions are from your imagination and a paragraph from a Libertarian piece of garbage, and not from knowledge of case law you simple lying turd!

All smoke and not bloody fire from you, Tex. You're just a lying wannabe asshole who can never be trusted for the truth of anything!! Perhaps you are channeling the Orange One, oh Texas shit for brains, and trying to match his ability to lie enthusiastically and with ease?

So the answer is YES?

So the answer is YES?

Non Sequitur - A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

~~Oxford English Dictionary~~

You're still a dodging, deflecting, dissembling and lying jackass. You're pinned so your lying ass turns once again to avoiding the topic of your lies and distortions by trying to pivot and getting someone to follow you idiocy. Fuck you very much little man, you have shown your true mettle by your avoidance of or even responding to the truth of your dishonest and slimy conduct!

The old regressive two step, when you're losing, try to deflect and change the subject. Now you've danced, answer the fucking question.