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.
What the fuck are you blathering about now. There is nothing to reconcile . Of course the Feds must abide by the Constitution. Again, your interpretation of the Constitution is not the only interpretation and not the prevailing one.No, you can't reconcile the fact that I've said several times now that states must abide by the cotus, but so must the federal gov. The federal gov has its duties, the states, and the people have the rest..
When the fuck did I say that it was. ?I agree with you on abortion, but it's not a function of the federal gov to codify a medical procedure into law, forcing states to allow it.
Read the cotus...the legislative branch is vested with the job of creating laws, not the judicial branch.The same shit over and over again! Yes they can create law! Case law! Again, if they can only interpret the law, how is that interpretation put into effect if not by the force of case law. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION! How esle do they make sure states are abiding by it? You continue to speak with forked tongue. You can't have it both ways.
I did not say anything about the feds authority to regulate marriage is absolute . I said that the states authority IS NOT ABSOLUTE. Is it possible that you do not understand the difference? Are you getting more stupid as we go, or just playing more games?You say the 2A is murky, but the federal gov authority to regulate marriage is absolute. It's the other way around.
Legislating from the bench is interpreting a cotus to mean something it wasn't intended to mean. The courts can't say "gay marriage is the law", they CAN say "the state trying to ban gay marriage violates equal protection according to the cotus, and thus cannot be upheld"Really? That is not "Legislating from the bench" OK what would be an example of legislating from the bench then.?
I would agree that it was law fool. I would not like it, but I would have to accept it as law. Nice try with your "gottcha " bullshitI agree with you on abortion, but it's not a function of the federal gov to codify a medical procedure into law, forcing states to allow it.
You say the 2A is murky, but the federal gov authority to regulate marriage is absolute. It's the other way around.
The 2A is not murky, it's very clear. The right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. So,.if a state say you can't carry a firearm, that would be infringement. That is against the cotus, and against our rights.
You would say that if cotus says gay marriage is the law, that is fine, then you would also have to recognize that if the cotus said carry laws were unconstitutional, that too would be fine...but you won't, will you?
I know it's not the prevailing one, because over the years, people have gotten away from it, and we've allowed the Fed gov to run roughshod over it. Again, you'd love nothing more than to get rid of it so you can have your one party rule.What the fuck are you blathering about now. There is nothing to reconcile . Of course the Feds must abide by the Constitution. Again, your interpretation of the Constitution is not the only interpretation and not the prevailing one.
Really?..are you saying you're not on board with Biden when he says he is going to codify roe into law?When the fuck did I say that it was. ?
??? We've been arguing for...3 weeks now? About how you are saying that scotus can make laws, and that the federal gov have the authority to make gay marriage law. You've been clear that states rights are not absolute, which must mean you think the Fed gov has more of a jurisdictionI did not say anything about the feds authority to regulate marriage is absolute . I said that the states authority IS NOT ABSOLUTE. Is it possible that you do not understand the difference? Are you getting more stupid as we go, or just playing more games?
Really? You just got done saying the 2A was "murky", basically trying to push away from the cotus ability to remove state restrictions on carrying.I would agree that it was law fool. I would not like it, but I would have to accept it as law. Nice try with your "gottcha " bullshit
Case law!! Get a grip!! Star Decisis. Binding precident that stood for 49 years until Trumps far right theocrates tossed it in the trash.Honestly, this whole argument really stems from what you all did to roe. Scotus just said that women have a right to privacy, and the leftys said "it's law! Scotus said abortion is legal!". They never said any such things, they just ruled on privacy issues, you all took it and ran with it, which is why the Dobbs decision happened. Scotus recognizes that roe was wrong, and it should have been a states rights issue, and they sent it back to the States.
No shit?? Thats what they did. Your point??Legislating from the bench is interpreting a cotus to mean something it wasn't intended to mean. The courts can't say "gay marriage is the law", they CAN say "the state trying to ban gay marriage violates equal protection according to the cotus, and thus cannot be upheld"
How about "there are no absolutes" I have tried to explain to you how that works but it has become clear that you are too obtuse to get it.??? We've been arguing for...3 weeks now? About how you are saying that scotus can make laws, and that the federal gov have the authority to make gay marriage law. You've been clear that states rights are not absolute, which must mean you think the Fed gov has more of a jurisdiction
So, if the states authority on gay marriage is not absolute, and the fed.gov authority on gay marriage is not absolute, then, then who or what, on gay marriage IS absolute?
My point is that I would consider it case law even if I don't agree with it. It is how things work. Try to get your head around that factReally? You just got done saying the 2A was "murky", basically trying to push away from the cotus ability to remove state restrictions on carrying.
Really? You just got done saying the 2A was "murky", basically trying to push away from the cotus ability to remove state restrictions on carrying.
I KNOW!! case law, you say it has the force of law, so it might as well be the same thing. Crap, let's just get rid of states rights then if the fed gov and the courts can simply just overrule the state whenever they want.....Case law!! Get a grip!! Star Decisis. Binding precident that stood for 49 years until Trumps far right theocrates tossed it in the trash.
My point is, as with roe, YOU all said it was law, that the courts created "settled law"...they didn't, they can't, YOU guys are the ones did that, and now they are calling it "precedent". It's bad precedent, something that should never have been done. If the scotus makes a bad decision, you can't call that law. What they did was to undo that whole mess that you all created.No shit?? Thats what they did. Your point??
Ok...if there are no absolutes, then who has the ultimate authority of the legality of gay marriage, or abortion?How about "there are no absolutes" I have tried to explain to you how that works but it has become clear that you are too obtuse to get it.
Actually, it shouldn't be "case law", it should be the proper interpretation of the cotus. It something the states shouldn't be able to deny, because it is a cotus protected right.My point is that I would consider it case law even if I don't agree with it. It is how things work. Try to get your head around that fact
I agree that they think cotus is a living breathing document, and thus subject to change based on what they want that day.What is truly Orwellian is how those on the left can find “rights” in the Constitution that simply are not there—such as murdering children in the womb or forcing society to recognize a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage—but they cannot see a right—such as the people's right to keep and bear arms—that is very clearly and explicitly stated and protected.
