The inept and corrupt federal government

[P@triot]

If you ever read the document, you would realize there is much open to interpretation......THAT is why we have courts

If you ever read that document - you would realize how astoundingly stupid you sound.

The law cannot be "open to interpretation" because it is literally impossible to obey a law if one person views the law one way and someone else views it another.

A 25mph speed limit is not "open to interpretation" and you've admitted as much in other threads. If you admit that lower laws can't be open to interpretation, you have to admit that the highest law in the land isn't open to interpretation.

The problem for you, of course, is that doing so prevents you from getting what you want. Which illustrates that you are selfish, greedy, and lack integrity.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes the scope There have been thousands of cases ruling on the scope of the Constitution

There have also been millions of murders through out U.S. history. By your really dumb "logic" because they occurred, that makes them legal and ok.

The courts also get to rule on murders

What else you got?

 

[P@triot]

Marbury vs Madison has been in effect for two hundred years

See....this is the problem with progressives. One of the idiot ilk will cite something stupid and the rest of the ignorant sheep will parrot it without having the slightest clue what they are referencing.

Marbury vs. Madison proves our case you nitwit. The Supreme Court exist to decide whether something the government does is Constitutional. For instance - Obamacare. The Supreme Court has full and total authority to review that and rule on it. But they cannot rule on the U.S. Constitution itself (and nowhere does Marbury vs. Madison establish that).

Nice one dummy! Thanks for proving our point because you don't want to take the time to know what you are talking about.

 

[P@triot]

Yes the scope There have been thousands of cases ruling on the scope of the Constitution

There have also been millions of murders through out U.S. history. By your really dumb "logic" because they occurred, that makes them legal and ok.

The courts also get to rule on murders

What else you got?

Bwahahahahaha! Way to run from that one buttercup. Since murder happen in this country - you're saying they are 100% legal and lawful? Wow.

 

[P@triot]

Marbury vs Madison has been in effect for two hundred years

Aside from the fact that Marybury vs. Madison proves that we are correct and you are dead wrong - I asked you where the courts derive the power to decide what the Constituion means. You can't point to a court case. Where did the courts derive the power to rule on Marybury vs. Madison?

You get really absurd when you get desperate. Why are you incapable of engaging in an adult conversation?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Examples of how Patriot would look at major scientific breakthroughs

Pavlovs dogs: Government wastes money to teach dogs to salivate

Gregor Mendels research on genetic mutation: Government wastes money breeding fruit flies

Soviets send dog "Laika" into space: Government wastes money creating dog astronauts

Examples of how rightwinger actually views the U.S. Constitution:

• The document doesn't matter - government has unlimited power because I said so

• Laws do not matter and should be ignored at all costs

• Anything which transfer money from people who work to people who refuse to work is to called "legal" and "proper" no matter how ridiculous.

I see rightwinger as suggesting the following:

Government has unlimited powers because SCOTUS said so.

And because I want to benefit from such powers....I support their decisions.

This is because I have no principles and only follow whatever path creates the goodies for me.

Screw the rest of you.

And screw principles.

Yes that is the way it works

Our courts get to decide the scope of the Constitution and how it applies in each case. For some reason, our founders did not leave it up to internet posters

The scope ?

Are you serious ?

You are right. There should have never been an argument.

Just like those asswipes that came up with selective incorporation....you really only need an argument that gets you what you want.

Thanks for confirming that principles don't run your life.

Yes the scope

There have been thousands of cases ruling on the scope of the Constitution

Why would there be case rulings on the scope.

The constitution is the scope.

Answer: So people like you can twist it to whatever suites your efforts to ensure you are living off the federal government or that it is protecting some non-existent right that you want in your life.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Marbury vs Madison has been in effect for two hundred years

Aside from the fact that Marybury vs. Madison proves that we are correct and you are dead wrong - I asked you where the courts derive the power to decide what the Constituion means. You can't point to a court case. Where did the courts derive the power to rule on Marybury vs. Madison?

You get really absurd when you get desperate. Why are you incapable of engaging in an adult conversation?

Correct. And where did John Marshall get the power to make such a proclimation.

Same as dumbass Douglas who got out a crystal ball and oijia board and recognized that for the majority, the right to privacy, even when not explicitly included in the Bill of Rights, was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections.

As I said, if you can't get the law passed, bypass the constitutionally established legislative bodies and head to the court.

The right does just as bad a job.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I've given you endless schooling on the U.S. Constitution junior. You laughably think that if you believe something isn't true, it ceases to be true. That's just not reality.

The U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and research is not one of them. Neither is art shows. So simple, so cut & dry, only a progressive could be confused by it.

You did?

Then where is your court case supporting your twisted view of the Constitution?

Why are you pointing at courts? We're talking about the U.S. Constitution. Oh wait....that's right....the U.S. Constitution proves you're an idiot. You don't understand it, have never read it, and thus you need to change the subject whenever it comes up.

The US Constitution designated a Judicial Branch that gets to decide all things Constitutional

Nowhere in the Constitution does it assign that responsibility to Message Board Posters

Yes, they get to decide those things that relate to the constitution.

Things like abortion were never written up in the constitution.

Don't tell me we have to go through this again.

If you ever read the document, you would realize there is much open to interpretation......THAT is why we have courts

And there is a lot that isn't open to interpretation because it isn't there...period. And yet, the courts decide to rule on it anyway.

Keep it up buckwheat.....you only continue to show you really don't know your right from your left.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes that is the way it works Our courts get to decide the scope of the Constitution and how it applies in each case. For some reason, our founders did not leave it up to internet posters

Bwahahahahaha! You can't help but laugh really hard at each wrongwinger post. He just makes stuff up as he goes (and he doesn't even attempt to hide it).

Tell me wrongwinger - where does the court derive the power to (and I quote) "decide the scope of the Constitution and how it applies in each case"?

Marbury vs Madison has been in effect for two hundred years

And if they stayed within the bounds set by it, there would not be the federal behemoth we have today.

The courts ran way past M v. M a long time ago.

 

[P@triot]

$100 million so that the Obama's could act like Beyoncé on lavish vacations around the world. Repulsive...

Watchdog group: Obama spent nearly $100 million of taxpayer money on travel as president

 

[P@triot]

Corruption:

Absolutely inexcusable...

Report: The federal government spends $1.5 billion on public relations each year

 

[rightwinger]

Marbury vs Madison has been in effect for two hundred years

See....this is the problem with progressives. One of the idiot ilk will cite something stupid and the rest of the ignorant sheep will parrot it without having the slightest clue what they are referencing.

Marbury vs. Madison proves our case you nitwit. The Supreme Court exist to decide whether something the government does is Constitutional. For instance - Obamacare. The Supreme Court has full and total authority to review that and rule on it. But they cannot rule on the U.S. Constitution itself (and nowhere does Marbury vs. Madison establish that).

Nice one dummy! Thanks for proving our point because you don't want to take the time to know what you are talking about.

Yup
Exactly

They rule on scope and applicability just like I said

Never said they could change it

 

[rightwinger]

Yes that is the way it works Our courts get to decide the scope of the Constitution and how it applies in each case. For some reason, our founders did not leave it up to internet posters

Bwahahahahaha! You can't help but laugh really hard at each wrongwinger post. He just makes stuff up as he goes (and he doesn't even attempt to hide it).

Tell me wrongwinger - where does the court derive the power to (and I quote) "decide the scope of the Constitution and how it applies in each case"?

Marbury vs Madison has been in effect for two hundred years

And if they stayed within the bounds set by it, there would not be the federal behemoth we have today.

The courts ran way past M v. M a long time ago.

We have the right sized government for our times

 

[P@triot]

Marbury vs Madison has been in effect for two hundred years

See....this is the problem with progressives. One of the idiot ilk will cite something stupid and the rest of the ignorant sheep will parrot it without having the slightest clue what they are referencing.

Marbury vs. Madison proves our case you nitwit. The Supreme Court exist to decide whether something the government does is Constitutional. For instance - Obamacare. The Supreme Court has full and total authority to review that and rule on it. But they cannot rule on the U.S. Constitution itself (and nowhere does Marbury vs. Madison establish that).

Nice one dummy! Thanks for proving our point because you don't want to take the time to know what you are talking about.

Yup. Exactly They rule on scope and applicability just like I said Never said they could change it

Well...kudos to you for finally admitting you were wrong all along. The Supreme Court was always empowered to rule on the constitutionality of legislation. They are not empowered to rule on the U.S. Constitution itself. It says what it says and nobody is authorized by the document to "interpret" it.

 

[P@triot]

We have the right sized government for our times

Again - that's as astoundingly ignorant as proclaiming that in this era of lower birth rates, it is the "time" to rape women.

Time is irrelevant in this context. The law is what matters. And the law says we have an unconstitutional monstrosity of a federal government. If our "times" called for larger government, the American people would have amended the U.S. Constitution.

We the People have spoken wrongwinger. It's time for you to accept that. You the U.S.-hating marxists are free to leave any time you want.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes that is the way it works Our courts get to decide the scope of the Constitution and how it applies in each case. For some reason, our founders did not leave it up to internet posters

Bwahahahahaha! You can't help but laugh really hard at each wrongwinger post. He just makes stuff up as he goes (and he doesn't even attempt to hide it).

Tell me wrongwinger - where does the court derive the power to (and I quote) "decide the scope of the Constitution and how it applies in each case"?

Marbury vs Madison has been in effect for two hundred years

And if they stayed within the bounds set by it, there would not be the federal behemoth we have today.

The courts ran way past M v. M a long time ago.

We have the right sized government for our times

Based on what ?

Nothing except your unprincipled need to get goodies legally.

 

[P@triot]

The same thing you always get with the federal government (especially when Dumbocrats are in charge) - Corruption:

Report: Planned Parenthood and Affiliates Cost Taxpayers at Least $12 Mil in Fraud

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yes that is the way it works Our courts get to decide the scope of the Constitution and how it applies in each case. For some reason, our founders did not leave it up to internet posters

Bwahahahahaha! You can't help but laugh really hard at each wrongwinger post. He just makes stuff up as he goes (and he doesn't even attempt to hide it).

Tell me wrongwinger - where does the court derive the power to (and I quote) "decide the scope of the Constitution and how it applies in each case"?

Marbury vs Madison has been in effect for two hundred years

And if they stayed within the bounds set by it, there would not be the federal behemoth we have today.

The courts ran way past M v. M a long time ago.

We have the right sized government for our times

Maybe slightly too small when it comes to infrastructure and educational funding.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I've given you endless schooling on the U.S. Constitution junior. You laughably think that if you believe something isn't true, it ceases to be true. That's just not reality.

The U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and research is not one of them. Neither is art shows. So simple, so cut & dry, only a progressive could be confused by it.

You did?

Then where is your court case supporting your twisted view of the Constitution?

Why are you pointing at courts? We're talking about the U.S. Constitution. Oh wait....that's right....the U.S. Constitution proves you're an idiot. You don't understand it, have never read it, and thus you need to change the subject whenever it comes up.

The US Constitution designated a Judicial Branch that gets to decide all things Constitutional

Nowhere in the Constitution does it assign that responsibility to Message Board Posters

Yes, they get to decide those things that relate to the constitution.

Things like abortion were never written up in the constitution.

Don't tell me we have to go through this again.

If you ever read the document, you would realize there is much open to interpretation......THAT is why we have courts

It is fucking amazing how clueless the loserterians really are on the issue of the constitution. They seem to think that the constitution was only made to govern in the freaking 18th century...Nutz.

 

[P@triot]

It is fucking amazing how clueless the loserterians really are on the issue of the constitution. They seem to think that the constitution was only made to govern in the freaking 18th century...Nutz.

Not nearly as amazing as how clueless you Dumbocrats are on the U.S. Constitution. Small, limited government is a timeless concept which is appropriate for any century.

Literally everything you nitwits desire can be achieved legally, more easily, and with bipartisan support through foundations. But you Dumbocrats are too greedy, too lazy, and too fascist to allow foundations (through free will) to achieve your agenda.