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.
More of your Jr. High drivel. Some folks just can't get here from there, I guess!I haven't spoken, heard or read some of those words since I was in junior high over 55 years ago. What grade are you in and why are you posting on this board, kid? Someone needs to smack your young ass for talking to adults like that.The powers of the checks and balances are written into the Constitution in Articles I, II & III. Judicial Review is a check on any excesses of the Legislative and/or the Executive. Now throw another tantrum, shit for brains!The dingle berries never cease to amaze.
Confusing "judicial" review with actually amending the Constitution.
The son of bitches should admit that they have no fucking idea about what they are talking about.
Cum swallower son of a bitch.
Why the fuck do you celebrate the fact that the motherfuckers are amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?
I believe all that jism is affecting your judgment.
.
Cum swallower son of a bitch.
Why the fuck do you celebrate the fact that the motherfuckers are amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?
I believe all that jism is affecting your judgment.
"Several years later, the Founders amended the Constitution to expressly protect many of the same fundamental rights against interference by the Federal Government. Consistent with their English heritage, the founding generation generally did not consider many of the rights identified in these amendments as new entitlements, but as inalienable rights of all men, given legal effect by their codification in the Constitution's text. See, e.g., 1 Annals of Cong. 431-432, 436--437, 440--442 (1834) (statement of Rep. Madison) (proposing Bill of Rights in the first Congress); The Federalist No. 84, pp. 531-533 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton); see also Heller, 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19) ("t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right"). The Court's subsequent decision in Barron, however, made plain that the codification of these rights in the Bill made them legally enforceable only against the Federal Government, not the States. See 7 Pet., at 247."
United States Supreme Court
MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL., (2010)
No. 08-1521
Regarding your citation with the broken link:
That was written by Justice Thomas in his CONCURRENCE with the Court's (Scalia) DECISION in the case. Even if it were relevant to the decision, the passage is merely a recounting of history and in no wise reflects upon the DECISION per se. It too is MOOT!
Whatcha gonna throw on the wall to see if it sticks next lad? You really should give it up and I getting tired of your ignorance and tutelage.
The powers of the checks and balances are written into the Constitution in Articles I, II & III. Judicial Review is a check on any excesses of the Legislative and/or the Executive. Now throw another tantrum, shit for brains!Yes, I fully understand the purpose and function of Article 1, § 8. You continue to refuse to accept the Constitutional power of the Judicial branch in their role to check and balance the other two co-equal branches to curb any excesses of either. That being judicial review.When the states established their union, they gave it limited legislative power. You know this right? And they didn't give it the power to restrict or prohibit the acquisition or possession of arms.Another know nothing absolutist heard from. You still haven't learned to address the actual content of a post and stay on point. Do that or piss off!
Enlighten yourself or remain profoundly stubborn and ignorant. Your choice!
The dingle berries never cease to amaze.
Confusing "judicial" review with actually amending the Constitution.
The son of bitches should admit that they have no fucking idea about what they are talking about.
You are ignorant of the actual purpose of the checks and balances on each branch of government under the authority of the Constitution by their respective co-equal branches, but especially the power of Judicial Review. That ignorance can be diminished through edifying yourself in matters of HS Civics...well at least what those of us that went through those classes and learned 50+ years ago.You understand that the states didn't grant congress plenary legislative power, right? You understand that congress's legislative powers are limited, and that its specific powers are listed in art I, section 8. You know this, right?You are ignorant of the actual purpose of the checks and balances on each branch of government under the authority of the Constitution by their respective co-equal branches, but especially the power of Judicial Review. That ignorance can be diminished through edifying yourself in matters of HS Civics...well at least what those of us that went through those classes and learned 50+ years ago.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about just like the author of that post to which I responded and you piggy backed. Add federalist #81 to your reading assignment and read everything Hamilton had to say regarding the judiciary's authority including its appellate jurisdiction. Damn, but you are really ignorant!The powers of the checks and balances are written into the Constitution in Articles I, II & III. Judicial Review is a check on any excesses of the Legislative and/or the Executive. Now throw another tantrum, shit for brains!Yes, I fully understand the purpose and function of Article 1, § 8. You continue to refuse to accept the Constitutional power of the Judicial branch in their role to check and balance the other two co-equal branches to curb any excesses of either. That being judicial review.When the states established their union, they gave it limited legislative power. You know this right? And they didn't give it the power to restrict or prohibit the acquisition or possession of arms.Another know nothing absolutist heard from. You still haven't learned to address the actual content of a post and stay on point. Do that or piss off!
Enlighten yourself or remain profoundly stubborn and ignorant. Your choice!
The dingle berries never cease to amaze.
Confusing "judicial" review with actually amending the Constitution.
The son of bitches should admit that they have no fucking idea about what they are talking about.
He is not talking about checks and balances
He is arguing for SCOTUS to surreptitiously amend the Constitution whenever is convenient
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about just like the author of that post to which I responded and you piggy backed. Add federalist #81 to your reading assignment and read everything Hamilton had to say regarding the judiciary's authority including its appellate jurisdiction. Damn, but you are really ignorant!The powers of the checks and balances are written into the Constitution in Articles I, II & III. Judicial Review is a check on any excesses of the Legislative and/or the Executive. Now throw another tantrum, shit for brains!Yes, I fully understand the purpose and function of Article 1, § 8. You continue to refuse to accept the Constitutional power of the Judicial branch in their role to check and balance the other two co-equal branches to curb any excesses of either. That being judicial review.When the states established their union, they gave it limited legislative power. You know this right? And they didn't give it the power to restrict or prohibit the acquisition or possession of arms.
Enlighten yourself or remain profoundly stubborn and ignorant. Your choice!
The dingle berries never cease to amaze.
Confusing "judicial" review with actually amending the Constitution.
The son of bitches should admit that they have no fucking idea about what they are talking about.
He is not talking about checks and balances
He is arguing for SCOTUS to surreptitiously amend the Constitution whenever is convenient
You are ignorant of the actual purpose of the checks and balances on each branch of government under the authority of the Constitution by their respective co-equal branches, but especially the power of Judicial Review.
I'm seeing this piece of shit you just posted sliding down the wall, too! Go to a tat parlor and get a large L placed in the middle of your forehead, lad!You don't know what the fuck you're talking about just like the author of that post to which I responded and you piggy backed. Add federalist #81 to your reading assignment and read everything Hamilton had to say regarding the judiciary's authority including its appellate jurisdiction. Damn, but you are really ignorant!The powers of the checks and balances are written into the Constitution in Articles I, II & III. Judicial Review is a check on any excesses of the Legislative and/or the Executive. Now throw another tantrum, shit for brains!Yes, I fully understand the purpose and function of Article 1, § 8. You continue to refuse to accept the Constitutional power of the Judicial branch in their role to check and balance the other two co-equal branches to curb any excesses of either. That being judicial review.
Enlighten yourself or remain profoundly stubborn and ignorant. Your choice!
The dingle berries never cease to amaze.
Confusing "judicial" review with actually amending the Constitution.
The son of bitches should admit that they have no fucking idea about what they are talking about.
He is not talking about checks and balances
He is arguing for SCOTUS to surreptitiously amend the Constitution whenever is convenient
Listen you stupid motherfucker
THE JUDICIARY HAS NO AUTHORITY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION UNDER THE GUISE OF INTERPRETING IT.
NONE.
Find Justice Stevens and fellate him.
NO PENUMBRAS NO EMANATIONS.
Ad hominem fallacy.I'm seeing this piece of shit you just posted sliding down the wall, too!
Ad hominem fallacy.Go to a tat parlor and get a large L placed in the middle of your forehead, lad!
You're like a broken record. Simply typing, "...specific powers granted are enumerated in art I, section 8." seems to be your limit of knowledge of things Constitutional. Have you read Federalist #78 thru #83 as I suggested so you could understand the function of the Judiciary as Hamilton laid it out? I know you haven't and you have the gall to claim I'm ignorant of the Constitution!You are ignorant of the actual purpose of the checks and balances on each branch of government under the authority of the Constitution by their respective co-equal branches, but especially the power of Judicial Review.
You are ignorant of the constitution. The constitution grants congress legislative power, and it grants the supreme court judicial power. Congress's legislative power is limited. The specific powers granted are enumerated in art I, section 8. You apparently can't read, because if you could you would see that the constitution does not grant congress the power to restrict the acquisition or possession of firearms.
You really hate having to face the fact that congress's legislative powers are limited, don't you?You're like a broken record. Simply typing, "...specific powers granted are enumerated in art I, section 8." seems to be your limit of knowledge of things Constitutional. Have you read Federalist #78 thru #83 as I suggested so you could understand the function of the Judiciary as Hamilton laid it out? I know you haven't and you have the gall to claim I'm ignorant of the Constitution!
Refusing to even attempt to increase your knowledge or to formulate an argument to highlight my alleged errors or ignorance is a prime indicator that you are a hypocritical know-nothing. You antifederalist absolutists lost the same fucking arguments when the several States ratified the Constitution. Grow up and learn to live with the consequences of the past.
Oh brother! No attempt at an argument was made, Einstein! It was simply a return volley in kind, fool!Ad hominem fallacy.I'm seeing this piece of shit you just posted sliding down the wall, too!
Ad hominem fallacy.Go to a tat parlor and get a large L placed in the middle of your forehead, lad!
So...no valid argument.
You lack substance. If you want to convince people, you need to at least try to provide some sort of argument, sonny boy.Oh brother! No attempt at an argument was made, Einstein! It was simply a return volley in kind, fool!Ad hominem fallacy.I'm seeing this piece of shit you just posted sliding down the wall, too!
Ad hominem fallacy.Go to a tat parlor and get a large L placed in the middle of your forehead, lad!
So...no valid argument.
I see you're getting desperate and repeating my words back at me. Hey, how many implied powers are there, bucko?You really hate having to face the fact that congress's legislative powers are limited, don't you?You're like a broken record. Simply typing, "...specific powers granted are enumerated in art I, section 8." seems to be your limit of knowledge of things Constitutional. Have you read Federalist #78 thru #83 as I suggested so you could understand the function of the Judiciary as Hamilton laid it out? I know you haven't and you have the gall to claim I'm ignorant of the Constitution!
Refusing to even attempt to increase your knowledge or to formulate an argument to highlight my alleged errors or ignorance is a prime indicator that you are a hypocritical know-nothing. You antifederalist absolutists lost the same fucking arguments when the several States ratified the Constitution. Grow up and learn to live with the consequences of the past.
Try reading. Maybe ask your parents. You might learn something.
FIrst mistake: You haven't even stated your position. Are you saying that congress has the legislative authority to band guns? Nobody knows. I said they don't, and you responded with some drivel about the judicial branch. But we still don't know what your position is regarding congress's powers. A good writer tries to convey his thoughts to the reader. You fail.I see you're getting desperate and repeating my words back at me. Hey, how many implied powers are there, bucko?
Trying to discuss ANYTHING with you rationally, is impossible. You won't even accept citations from the Framers of the Constitution cited by SCOTUS or SCOTUS citations as valid by simply IGNORING them. Now you've proven yourself a hypocrite so...You lack substance. If you want to convince people, you need to at least try to provide some sort of argument, sonny boy.Oh brother! No attempt at an argument was made, Einstein! It was simply a return volley in kind, fool!Ad hominem fallacy.I'm seeing this piece of shit you just posted sliding down the wall, too!
Ad hominem fallacy.Go to a tat parlor and get a large L placed in the middle of your forehead, lad!
So...no valid argument.
Trying to discuss ANYTHING with you rationally, is impossible. You won't even accept citations from the Framers of the Constitution cited by SCOTUS or SCOTUS citations as valid by simply IGNORING them. Now you've proven yourself a hypocrite so...
This is our third rodeo, pup! I have made my position very, very clear. Every time I wrote something you didn't want to discuss that blew a hole in your assertions (you do not employ argumentation), you would revert to your Article I, § 8 routine and not even mention things like Judicial Review, checks and balances, differences between delegated, enumerated and implied powers, content of the Federalist Papers, et al. Therefore, you are in error or are simply lying outright for cover. I believe the latter is most correct. So...FIrst mistake: You haven't even stated your position. Are you saying that congress has the legislative authority to band guns? Nobody knows. I said they don't, and you responded with some drivel about the judicial branch. But we still don't know what your position is regarding congress's powers. A good writer tries to convey his thoughts to the reader. You fail.I see you're getting desperate and repeating my words back at me. Hey, how many implied powers are there, bucko?
And in answer to your question, 0.
This is our third rodeo, pup! I have made my position very, very clear. Every time I wrote something you didn't want to discuss that blew a hole in your assertions (you do not employ argumentation), you would revert to your Article I, § 8 routine and not even mention things like Judicial Review, checks and balances, differences between delegated, enumerated and implied powers, content of the Federalist Papers, et al. Therefore, you are in error or are simply lying outright for cover. I believe the latter is most correct. So...
Back to the subject:
The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?
Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."
But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.
Why?
There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc
The people have expressed their will through the political process and their lawfully elected representatives that felons shall not take possession of firearms, a reasonable restriction on the Second Amendment right, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The people are likewise at liberty to repeal such a prohibition through the political process, or challenge the law authorizing the prohibition in Federal court.
Back to the subject:
The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?
Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."
But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.
Why?
There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc
100% CORRECT.
- A well-regulated Militia being necessary to (or for) the security of a free State, and having said that,
- the right of the people, the universal human right
- to keep and bear Arms, to possess and carry firearms,
- shall not be infringed: shall not be limited or restricted in any way, shape or form.
The people have expressed their will through the political process and their lawfully elected representatives that felons shall not take possession of firearms, a reasonable restriction on the Second Amendment right, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The people are likewise at liberty to repeal such a prohibition through the political process, or challenge the law authorizing the prohibition in Federal court.
100% BULLSHIT. We the people have been thoroughly disenfranchised and barred from Federal courts and all other Federal buildings, parks and facilities with respect to gun rights.
And what if some criminal is out of prison, armed & dangerous? Leave him the fuck alone. Our lovely city slicker police officers are so well armed & organized they can follow military rules of engagement. But no, the damned cops don't do that. They treat unarmed civilians as armed enemy combatants at war and shoot at us with reckless abandon and murderous disregard for our lives and supreme protectiveness for their own.
