States rights pipe dream

[Mr. Shaman]

How does the Constitution interpret itself?

Words Mean things. And the Founders left a 'Manual' of sorts. It's there for the reading and as an added bonus? It's free all over the Internet.

I suggest that YOU aquaint and educate yourself sewerboy.

The shit you're spewing here doesn't quite cut it, nor is your twisting of words.

I ain't buying what yer sellin.

How can you explain two hundred years of trying to interpret the second amendment?

PUNCTUATION!!!!!!

(That's the closest I've ever gotten....)​

"There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives."

How 'bout that?? The States tweaked what The Founding Fathers had INTENDED!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So your contention is they ignore it but WHY follow it? Dangerous thinking...but right on track with Obama, The Congress and other Statist Nutjobs.

Now forget---That the Constitution IS what ALL American LAW is based.

What you propose is Anarchy.

You sir, are a fuckin' DOPE.

They always seem to forget that without the U.S. Constitution, they have no authority with which to compel us, save right of might. And that's a double-edged sword best not to be fucked with.

....And, there are a LOT of dead women, children, priests & nuns, who'd attest to THAT....if they could.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

right, so we haven't followed the constitution in decades and decades?

And what else would the judicial branch do if they did'nt interpret laws? What was the point of the judicial branch then if not to determine if laws are unconstitutional or not? To look pretty in robes?

And wouldn't the courts ruling that be in fact constitutional?

So your contention is they ignore it but WHY follow it? Dangerous thinking...but right on track with Obama, The Congress and other Statist Nutjobs.

Now forget---That the Constitution IS what ALL American LAW is based.

What you propose is Anarchy.

You sir, are a fuckin' DOPE.

As you continue to make shit up and twist what I'm arguing. Having a more centralized government and federal rules and regulations, like we have today and has been that way for a long time, is not anarchy. Where are you getting this from?

You're talkin' to a MarkLeviniac....and, you'd ask that????

The man is an overbearing-LOUDMOUTHED-ASSHOLE!!! (...who HIDES in a bunker.)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQAjQZjYuPE]YouTube - Mark Levin Interview on C-SPAN (Part 1)[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.

Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.

Brilliant. "This is the twenty-first century. Give up trying to have a good society, and just accept that we're going to impose tyranny on you. Life sucks, it's inevitable."

Tell you what, assmunch. YOU give up YOUR ideology and hopes for the future, and let the rest of us decide whether accepting a shit sandwich without protest is realism or stupidity for ourselves.

She's all YOURS'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DiamondDave]

The Supreme Court isn't the final arbitor, the Constitution is.

And who interprets and rules whether its constitutional or not? The Supreme court

Do you even know the constitution if you miss that part?

Please show that power granted within the constitution

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Brilliant. "This is the twenty-first century. Give up trying to have a good society, and just accept that we're going to impose tyranny on you. Life sucks, it's inevitable."

Tell you what, assmunch. YOU give up YOUR ideology and hopes for the future, and let the rest of us decide whether accepting a shit sandwich without protest is realism or stupidity for ourselves.

Another person who is unable to read and just makes shit up. What does this have to do with anything I've said?
This thread sure shows who the true moron nuts are, unreal

That's EXACTLY what you said, just cut down to the bare, ugly meaning you were trying to hide.

You're right about this thread showing us who the morons and nuts are, though.

Not quite.....but, we're GETTIN' there!!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The power of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution was established in Case Law, not the Constitution. Somebody help. Was this Marbury v. Madison?

Believe so, yeah. And it was deliberately intended to undermine the Constitution as written and ratified.

Oh really, yet nobody has done anything to try and change or fix this for 200+ years? Really?

Only if you're willing to ignore Prohibition.

(....One o' the White-Wing's efforts to legislate "morality". )​

 

[Dr Gregg]

OH Gunny, why do you like making such a fool out of yourself? More proof of what a phony and a troll like person Gunny is.

*yawn*

Rule #2 in the leftwingnut handbook ... attack the poster's intellect with superfluous bullshit, assuming a position of superiority one has not earned. Code name: smoke n mirrors.

You're a worthless fuck. You have no argument. You're some sad fuck hiding in mommy's basement and have YouTube - Brad Paisley - Online on wrap in your cd changer.

While many leftwingfools don't understand this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's STILL the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution whether or not idiots like you choose to ignore it.

In other words, you cannot and/or are incapable of addressing the topic.

 

[Dr Gregg]

The Supreme Court isn't the final arbitor, the Constitution is.

And who interprets and rules whether its constitutional or not? The Supreme court

Do you even know the constitution if you miss that part?

Please show that power granted within the constitution

Already been done in this thread, head out of ass once in a while and actually read, if you can

 

[DiamondDave]

And who interprets and rules whether its constitutional or not? The Supreme court

Do you even know the constitution if you miss that part?

Please show that power granted within the constitution

Already been done in this thread, head out of ass once in a while and actually read, if you can

No... it has not already been done... you and ones like you like to cite case law for this... however, the constitution does not grant the supreme court (nor any other branch) the right to grant itself powers... any and all changes to constitutional power or content is indeed to be done through the amendment process...

Not saying that I am against SC review for constitutionality.... within limits... just that your statement is indeed wrong

 

[Mr. Shaman]

When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.

Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.

yea lets force every state to bow to every demand of the federal government. will make the transition to one world government easier

Ya' GOTTA quit listening to those delusional/burnt-out alcoholics!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.

Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.

See... here's what you're missing, aside from the whole Constitution thingey.

There was a REASON why our framers balanced the power of central government with state sovereignty. Central power is prone to corruption, much as we're seeing now in Washington.

NOW??!!!!!

Where were you people in 2000??!!!!



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcJ4sjgtIR0]YouTube - American Casino[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

We have courts in order to impose a judicial oligarchy....That's why the scumbucket judges and looyahs refuse to apprise juries of their lawful power to judge both the facts and the justness of the laws.

Gee.....I thought all-of-that was cured with Three Strikes??


​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'm not, you guys bitch and moan about things federal gov't does to violate states right, yet not a single supreme court case has determined that. I've even heard people claim regulations in drugs and other stuff should be determined by the states. Imagine what a clusterfuck that would be

The FDA is a "clusterfuck" enough already.

I mean, they approve aspartame for goodnessakes. Read more about it, and you'll see it's more harmful than good...

Ah, yes....the "conservative"-response: "Throwin'-out the baby, with the bathwater."....'cause any option, more-specific, might require thinking!! ​

 

[rightwinger]

Please show that power granted within the constitution

Already been done in this thread, head out of ass once in a while and actually read, if you can

No... it has not already been done... you and ones like you like to cite case law for this... however, the constitution does not grant the supreme court (nor any other branch) the right to grant itself powers... any and all changes to constitutional power or content is indeed to be done through the amendment process...

Not saying that I am against SC review for constitutionality.... within limits... just that your statement is indeed wrong

Sure it is...

200 years of Supreme Court rulings on constitutional issues are wrong....Glenn Beck rantings about the real powers of the Supreme Court are right

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'm not, you guys bitch and moan about things federal gov't does to violate states right, yet not a single supreme court case has determined that. I've even heard people claim regulations in drugs and other stuff should be determined by the states. Imagine what a clusterfuck that would be

The FDA is a "clusterfuck" enough already.

I mean, they approve aspartame for goodnessakes. Read more about it, and you'll see it's more harmful than good...

And Thalidomide...And Vioxx...And Fen-phen...

But when has any FDA bureaucrat ever been held to account when they approve such disasters?....Never.

That's RIGHT, folks.....there goes ANOTHER ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Thanks, a LOT, Teabaggers!!!!!!!!!!!"​

 

[Oddball]

Translation: I got nothing.

 

[Oddball]

We have courts in order to impose a judicial oligarchy....That's why the scumbucket judges and looyahs refuse to apprise juries of their lawful power to judge both the facts and the justness of the laws.

Gee.....I thought ....​

No, you didn't.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And Thalidomide...And Vioxx...And Fen-phen...

But when has any FDA bureaucrat ever been held to account when they approve such disasters?....Never.

Still...YET...FDA is good. I am reminded of it by the Lawyer Commercials I see for the substances that the FDA had approved...and later pulled off the shelves.

Think Government can be Sued [much less the FDA]? Ain't happening.

*It Should*.

OK... SO when dangerous products slink through despite the FDA's best efforts and somebody successfully sues the Federal Government for damages (rather than the manufacturer of the product)... Who pays for that?

What do you think would transpire if the FDA was abolished and drug companies could put anything they want onto market?

Do you THINK before you say things?

Get serious.

You're addressing History-challenged Ditto-Heads, Freepers & Teabaggers.

​

"Upton Sinclair originally intended to expose "the inferno of exploitation [of the typical American factory worker at the turn of the 20th Century]," but the reading public instead fixated on food safety as the novel's most pressing issue. In fact, Sinclair bitterly admitted his celebrity rose, "not because the public cared anything about the workers, but simply because the public did not want to eat tubercular beef."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'd rather have a non-FDA society.....

You'll enjoy Mexico!!​