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.
So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?Well maybe you can read this English. From one of our founders - who clearly says the people and citizens and not "militias". Doh! That's got to sting a little, uh?It's a simple question Candy. The right of who? Does it say "militia"? Does it?
Sorry, I only read English. Try again.
View attachment 73314
Did Sam endorse that webpage? LOL.
It says Militia. It said militia when you started. Chances are it will say militia tomorrow. It says, said, will say, it for a reason.
It really does say Militia. True story bro.So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?Well maybe you can read this English. From one of our founders - who clearly says the people and citizens and not "militias". Doh! That's got to sting a little, uh?It's a simple question Candy. The right of who? Does it say "militia"? Does it?
Sorry, I only read English. Try again.
View attachment 73314
Did Sam endorse that webpage? LOL.
It says Militia. It said militia when you started. Chances are it will say militia tomorrow. It says, said, will say, it for a reason.
And it says "militia"? It does? Really? I asked you a few posts back who has the right and you refused to answer. Lets examine again...shall we? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
It really does say Militia. True story bro.So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?Well maybe you can read this English. From one of our founders - who clearly says the people and citizens and not "militias". Doh! That's got to sting a little, uh?It's a simple question Candy. The right of who? Does it say "militia"? Does it?
Sorry, I only read English. Try again.
View attachment 73314
Did Sam endorse that webpage? LOL.
It says Militia. It said militia when you started. Chances are it will say militia tomorrow. It says, said, will say, it for a reason.
And it says "militia"? It does? Really? I asked you a few posts back who has the right and you refused to answer. Lets examine again...shall we? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.
It really does say Militia. True story bro.So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?Well maybe you can read this English. From one of our founders - who clearly says the people and citizens and not "militias". Doh! That's got to sting a little, uh?Sorry, I only read English. Try again.
View attachment 73314
Did Sam endorse that webpage? LOL.
It says Militia. It said militia when you started. Chances are it will say militia tomorrow. It says, said, will say, it for a reason.
And it says "militia"? It does? Really? I asked you a few posts back who has the right and you refused to answer. Lets examine again...shall we? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.
LOL so now you're true intent comes out, you want a left leaning court to further your gun agenda.
And OBVIOUSLY the founding fathers didn't limit 2nd amendment rights to mean only people in the militia. and besides that, that is stupid, any three guys could form a "militia" and defeat that ruling.
The first amendment says religion to, so I guess if you're an atheist you can shut the fuck up, you don't have a right after all.It really does say Militia. True story bro.So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?Well maybe you can read this English. From one of our founders - who clearly says the people and citizens and not "militias". Doh! That's got to sting a little, uh?
View attachment 73314
Did Sam endorse that webpage? LOL.
It says Militia. It said militia when you started. Chances are it will say militia tomorrow. It says, said, will say, it for a reason.
And it says "militia"? It does? Really? I asked you a few posts back who has the right and you refused to answer. Lets examine again...shall we? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.
LOL so now you're true intent comes out, you want a left leaning court to further your gun agenda.
And OBVIOUSLY the founding fathers didn't limit 2nd amendment rights to mean only people in the militia. and besides that, that is stupid, any three guys could form a "militia" and defeat that ruling.
The amendment says “militia”. Sorry.
That is a great question Candy (seriously).Except that Thomas Jefferson was the architect behind our entire structure of government. He didn't have to be in the room junior (he was in France lobbying for their assistance with the Revolutionary War) when the Constitution was written to be the one who designed it. They used Jefferson's ideas, his writings, his legislation while in the Virginia state legislature, and his protégé James Madison was there the entire time representing Jefferson's voice for his design.Jefferson was not there in Philadelphia when the Constitution was written. But Jefferson, really didn't agree with a number of decisions of Chief Justice Marshall during that period so his comments are only his opinion and not having any more weight that other opinions without substantiation. His opinion is NOT part of the Constitution is it! Your dodge and deflection is duly noted shit for brains. Now stay on topic fool, and stop trying to move the goal posts, idiot!You are fucking wrong again Mr. Constitutional Expert! First read and understand Article III. The powers vested and the scope of SCOTUS are laid out there. SCOTUS was given APPELATE POWERS, dummy!
The appellate powers of SCOTUS are part of the checks and balances incorporated throughout the Constitution, fool! See the Federalist #81 to gain some perspective to the Founders' intent.ARTICLE III, § 2, Clause 2;
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. [Emphasis Added]
You prove beyond any doubt that you don't know JACK SHIT about the Constitution, and your self-professed depth of things Constitutional is absolutely notwithstanding you bloody idiot!
“It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.… The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and cosovereign within themselves.” – Thomas Jefferson (September 28, 1820)
Considering he's the architect behind the entire damn thing - I would say his voice carries more than every U.S. citizen combined when it comes to what the Constitution actually says.
I always like to ask people this:
What parts of the Constitution, as we have the benefit of 230+ years worth of hindsight, did the framers get wrong?
Please highlight for me where you see "militia": the right of the people to keep and bear armsIt really does say Militia. True story bro.So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?Well maybe you can read this English. From one of our founders - who clearly says the people and citizens and not "militias". Doh! That's got to sting a little, uh?
View attachment 73314
Did Sam endorse that webpage? LOL.
It says Militia. It said militia when you started. Chances are it will say militia tomorrow. It says, said, will say, it for a reason.
And it says "militia"? It does? Really? I asked you a few posts back who has the right and you refused to answer. Lets examine again...shall we? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.
LOL so now you're true intent comes out, you want a left leaning court to further your gun agenda.
And OBVIOUSLY the founding fathers didn't limit 2nd amendment rights to mean only people in the militia. and besides that, that is stupid, any three guys could form a "militia" and defeat that ruling.
The amendment says “militia”. Sorry.
The first amendment says religion to, so I guess if you're an atheist you can shut the fuck up, you don't have a right after all.It really does say Militia. True story bro.So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?Did Sam endorse that webpage? LOL.
It says Militia. It said militia when you started. Chances are it will say militia tomorrow. It says, said, will say, it for a reason.
And it says "militia"? It does? Really? I asked you a few posts back who has the right and you refused to answer. Lets examine again...shall we? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.
LOL so now you're true intent comes out, you want a left leaning court to further your gun agenda.
And OBVIOUSLY the founding fathers didn't limit 2nd amendment rights to mean only people in the militia. and besides that, that is stupid, any three guys could form a "militia" and defeat that ruling.
The amendment says “militia”. Sorry.
Please highlight for me where you see "militia": the right of the people to keep and bear armsIt really does say Militia. True story bro.So now you will dismiss the quotes of founders if they prove you are trying to distort and usurp the U.S. Constitution?Did Sam endorse that webpage? LOL.
It says Militia. It said militia when you started. Chances are it will say militia tomorrow. It says, said, will say, it for a reason.
And it says "militia"? It does? Really? I asked you a few posts back who has the right and you refused to answer. Lets examine again...shall we? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.
LOL so now you're true intent comes out, you want a left leaning court to further your gun agenda.
And OBVIOUSLY the founding fathers didn't limit 2nd amendment rights to mean only people in the militia. and besides that, that is stupid, any three guys could form a "militia" and defeat that ruling.
The amendment says “militia”. Sorry.
View attachment 73350
That is a great question Candy (seriously).Except that Thomas Jefferson was the architect behind our entire structure of government. He didn't have to be in the room junior (he was in France lobbying for their assistance with the Revolutionary War) when the Constitution was written to be the one who designed it. They used Jefferson's ideas, his writings, his legislation while in the Virginia state legislature, and his protégé James Madison was there the entire time representing Jefferson's voice for his design.Jefferson was not there in Philadelphia when the Constitution was written. But Jefferson, really didn't agree with a number of decisions of Chief Justice Marshall during that period so his comments are only his opinion and not having any more weight that other opinions without substantiation. His opinion is NOT part of the Constitution is it! Your dodge and deflection is duly noted shit for brains. Now stay on topic fool, and stop trying to move the goal posts, idiot!You are fucking wrong again Mr. Constitutional Expert! First read and understand Article III. The powers vested and the scope of SCOTUS are laid out there. SCOTUS was given APPELATE POWERS, dummy!
The appellate powers of SCOTUS are part of the checks and balances incorporated throughout the Constitution, fool! See the Federalist #81 to gain some perspective to the Founders' intent.
You prove beyond any doubt that you don't know JACK SHIT about the Constitution, and your self-professed depth of things Constitutional is absolutely notwithstanding you bloody idiot!
“It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.… The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and cosovereign within themselves.” – Thomas Jefferson (September 28, 1820)
Considering he's the architect behind the entire damn thing - I would say his voice carries more than every U.S. citizen combined when it comes to what the Constitution actually says.
I always like to ask people this:
What parts of the Constitution, as we have the benefit of 230+ years worth of hindsight, did the framers get wrong?
Having the luxury of 240 years of hindsight (and examining this document literally hundreds and hundreds of time - committed to reading it daily as much as possible), I can say that they literally got nothing wrong.
There is GREAT confusion regarding Executive Orders (EO) and Executive actions. Actually, the President ordering the flag to fly at half-mast is an Executive action and NOT an Executive Order at all. The confusion stems from the far right faction trying to smear Obama FOR YEARS with their special style of propaganda to project Obama as a dictatorial, power hungry SOB violating the Constitution promoting tyranny and grabbing power.I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:
The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.
Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".
And this is what you get when RWNJ’s try to interpret the Constitution; you pick and choose which words matter, decide that some things you hate are unconstitutional while others are just spiffy….
Anyway...
We have a constitution based on faith that those elected will do their duty. In modern times we have a Congress and a President that pick and choose their duties.
This is why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to further perfect the document. Something like one branch of Congress must give the other branch’s work an up or down floor vote within 90 days. No more having appointed “Majority leaders” acting as traffic cops and bills never getting a vote. Something like advise and consent be on a time table of no more than 6 months. Something like the Executive must enforce all laws on the books that are under the branch’s purview.
In truth, I would go further with line item vetoes and getting rid of the war powers act. But I think scheduled and sober analysis of the Constitution once every 50 years or so is a sign that you’re updating what is in effect, your business plan.
The Court, is in fact supposed to be that "voice" but has unfortunately became nothing but a puppet for the other two branches in recent years. It sickens me when I read about a left leaning or right leaning justice, they should be leaning one way and one way only, towards the COTUS, and it is SUPPOSED to be within their power to say "no that is unconstitutional" or "no you've exceeded your authority" based solely on the law, not based on whether they agree with what either Congress or the President did.
I'm sick of Democrats AND Republicans playing games with our government and the Court not having the integrity to step in.
I imagine that almost all Presidents in our lifetimes at one time or the other were equally vexed by the Supreme Court and lower courts. It’s a sign that things are on the right path.
I don't know that I would agree that a President constantly trying to expand his powers and being slapped down by SCOTUS is a good thing, but I take your point.
When Scalia died, the President (executive) ordered flags be flown at half staff. Boom; executive order.
Signing statements are a different animal all together. Obama’s bullshit “czar” posts….different animal all together although they were quickly lumped in with every other euphemism that had come before it.
Well....you're half right (which is a HUGE step for you). Executive Orders are designed and legally binding only towards members of the executive branch (i.e. people who work for Obama).There is GREAT confusion regarding Executive Orders (EO) and Executive actions. Actually, the President ordering the flag to fly at half-mast is an Executive action and NOT an Executive Order at all. The confusion stems from the far right faction trying to smear Obama FOR YEARS with their special style of propaganda to project Obama as a dictatorial, power hungry SOB violating the Constitution promoting tyranny and grabbing power.And this is what you get when RWNJ’s try to interpret the Constitution; you pick and choose which words matter, decide that some things you hate are unconstitutional while others are just spiffy….
Anyway...
We have a constitution based on faith that those elected will do their duty. In modern times we have a Congress and a President that pick and choose their duties.
This is why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to further perfect the document. Something like one branch of Congress must give the other branch’s work an up or down floor vote within 90 days. No more having appointed “Majority leaders” acting as traffic cops and bills never getting a vote. Something like advise and consent be on a time table of no more than 6 months. Something like the Executive must enforce all laws on the books that are under the branch’s purview.
In truth, I would go further with line item vetoes and getting rid of the war powers act. But I think scheduled and sober analysis of the Constitution once every 50 years or so is a sign that you’re updating what is in effect, your business plan.
The Court, is in fact supposed to be that "voice" but has unfortunately became nothing but a puppet for the other two branches in recent years. It sickens me when I read about a left leaning or right leaning justice, they should be leaning one way and one way only, towards the COTUS, and it is SUPPOSED to be within their power to say "no that is unconstitutional" or "no you've exceeded your authority" based solely on the law, not based on whether they agree with what either Congress or the President did.
I'm sick of Democrats AND Republicans playing games with our government and the Court not having the integrity to step in.
I imagine that almost all Presidents in our lifetimes at one time or the other were equally vexed by the Supreme Court and lower courts. It’s a sign that things are on the right path.
I don't know that I would agree that a President constantly trying to expand his powers and being slapped down by SCOTUS is a good thing, but I take your point.
When Scalia died, the President (executive) ordered flags be flown at half staff. Boom; executive order.
Signing statements are a different animal all together. Obama’s bullshit “czar” posts….different animal all together although they were quickly lumped in with every other euphemism that had come before it.
Executive actions are what any President issues to conduct the routine business of the Executive Branch. Executive Orders, on the other hand, are legally binding ORDERS directed towards the Federal agencies under the direct control of the Executive; nothing more and nothing less. If one looks at the actual number of EO's Obama has produced in 7 yrs 3 mos in office they will find he has produced the modest number of only 226 compared to FDR's 3466, Hoover's 995 or Reagan's 380, et al.
You can find the Executive Order Disposition Table here is you might want to see the ACTUAL EO's Obama has issued: Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index
Cite them by Name and Number. To make it easy for you, here again are the Executive Order Disposition Tables. Back up your bullshit or go pound sand, shit for brains! Executive Orders Disposition Tables IndexNow here is where you are completely wrong - for starters - Obama issues Executive Orders which usurp the U.S. Constitution.
You can't read AND understand can you! The first paragraph of the piece you cite puts you in a clown suit, fool, and states;Obama and his minions love to crow about his limited use of Executive Orders. But what he fails to mention (and his minions are far too stupid to realize) is that he instead issues "Presidential Memorandums" - as was the case for his insanely illegal "Dream Act".
He has issued over 250 "Presidential Memorandums" along side of his over 200 "Executive Orders".
Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'
Executive memoranda (EM) are used to direct those agencies within the Executive Branch and are Executive actions you blithering idiot! EM's are the instrument used to inform Executive Branch. The President is EMPOWERED by the US Constitution in Article II to do just that you simpering fool!President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
Yes...and if all he was doing was instructing the executive branch to do something that was legal, there weren't be an issue. But guess what angry little asshat? When he tells Homeland Security not to deport illegal aliens, that is a direct violation of the law.Cite them by Name and Number. To make it easy for you, here again are the Executive Order Disposition Tables. Back up your bullshit or go pound sand, shit for brains! Executive Orders Disposition Tables IndexNow here is where you are completely wrong - for starters - Obama issues Executive Orders which usurp the U.S. Constitution.
You can't read AND understand can you! The first paragraph of the piece you cite puts you in a clown suit, fool, and states;Obama and his minions love to crow about his limited use of Executive Orders. But what he fails to mention (and his minions are far too stupid to realize) is that he instead issues "Presidential Memorandums" - as was the case for his insanely illegal "Dream Act".
He has issued over 250 "Presidential Memorandums" along side of his over 200 "Executive Orders".
Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'
Executive memoranda (EM) are used to direct those agencies within the Executive Branch and are Executive actions you blithering idiot! EM's are the instrument used to inform Executive Branch. The President is EMPOWERED by the US Constitution in Article II to do just that you simpering fool!President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
Executive actions and executive Orders are two completely different animals. Bush used Executive memoranda too, just like those Presidents before him, idiot! And how many EM's can you read in the Federal Register compared to the number of EO's? Only EO's can be found in the FR because they are legally binding, half-wit!
I described to CandyCorn the difference between the two and you couldn't read correctly. Then you present an article doing EXACTLY what I said was happening with the purposeful confusion of the far right faction and their "assets" -- to conflate Executive Orders and Executive actions to imply impropriety and unlawful behavior by the Chief Executive. Damn but you are fucking stupid! Learn how to read and understand, dummy!!!!
This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.
Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?
But what a shame. Liberals don't understand that every time they pretend like words don't have any meaning to usurp the Constitutional rights of someone else, they set a precedence to have their own Constitutional rights usurped with that same tactic.This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.
Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?
I think the framers had a very good idea that the constitution would be attacked, and recognized how fragile it was. Ben Franklin certainly did
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.
McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review,vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.
If Obama instructed DHS to do something illegal as you CLAIM, cite the statute's Title, Chapter and Section from the Code along with the documentation proving he violated that statute by making an unlawful order! You will never do that you bloody phony! You're all hot air and know NOTHING of value. You simply parrot propaganda.Yes...and if all he was doing was instructing the executive branch to do something that was legal, there weren't be an issue. But guess what angry little asshat? When he tells Homeland Security not to deport illegal aliens, that is a direct violation of the law.Cite them by Name and Number. To make it easy for you, here again are the Executive Order Disposition Tables. Back up your bullshit or go pound sand, shit for brains! Executive Orders Disposition Tables IndexNow here is where you are completely wrong - for starters - Obama issues Executive Orders which usurp the U.S. Constitution.
You can't read AND understand can you! The first paragraph of the piece you cite puts you in a clown suit, fool, and states;Obama and his minions love to crow about his limited use of Executive Orders. But what he fails to mention (and his minions are far too stupid to realize) is that he instead issues "Presidential Memorandums" - as was the case for his insanely illegal "Dream Act".
He has issued over 250 "Presidential Memorandums" along side of his over 200 "Executive Orders".
Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'
Executive memoranda (EM) are used to direct those agencies within the Executive Branch and are Executive actions you blithering idiot! EM's are the instrument used to inform Executive Branch. The President is EMPOWERED by the US Constitution in Article II to do just that you simpering fool!President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
Executive actions and executive Orders are two completely different animals. Bush used Executive memoranda too, just like those Presidents before him, idiot! And how many EM's can you read in the Federal Register compared to the number of EO's? Only EO's can be found in the FR because they are legally binding, half-wit!
I described to CandyCorn the difference between the two and you couldn't read correctly. Then you present an article doing EXACTLY what I said was happening with the purposeful confusion of the far right faction and their "assets" -- to conflate Executive Orders and Executive actions to imply impropriety and unlawful behavior by the Chief Executive. Damn but you are fucking stupid! Learn how to read and understand, dummy!!!!
I'm guessing you have no reading comprehension because you're so angry about looking like a fool in front of everyone? Like how you were crowing about the "limited" use of Executive Orders by Obama while being completely unaware of the Presidential Memorandum's that he had issued which do the exact same thing as the EO's. How embarrassing for you.
By the chief - trying to say that Obama's over 200 "Executive Orders" isn't that much by simply citing the three presidents that used them the most is as stupid as saying that you "only" raped and murdered 4 women and that's not very much compared to Ted Bundy. You want a real comparison? George Washington issued 1 Executive Order in his 8 years as President. One.
Now scream a bunch of profanities and make a fool of yourself again....
You haven't proven jack shit! All you've provided is your uninformed opinion and that is not proof of anything but your "opinions"! Here is additional proof that your are wrong in your misguided belief that if something is not written precisely within the Constitution then it is unconstitutional, which is bullshit ignorance on your part.I can see why you are so angry. I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no governing body is empowered by the U.S. Constitution to decide what the Constitution says or means (because there is nothing to "interpret" - it says exactly what it says and it means exactly what it means).
And watching you flail around wildly is fall down hilarious. How can Obamacare be "unconstitutional"? Because the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate healthcare and it does not give the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. This was a very easy 9-0 decision. The problem is, Dumbocrats have stacked the Supreme Court with political activists instead of justices. Furthermore, Justice Roberts (the deciding justice in the case) decided to engage in political activism himself. He believed that allowing Obamacare would enrage the American people to the point that they would vote Barack Obama out of the White House (he stated as much when he said in his opinion "elections have consequences"). Yes. Yes the do Justice Roberts. And the system of checks and balances are supposed to limit the damage of those consequences. Instead of trying to influence the American people, he should have simply done his job. But - the Supreme Court had every right to hear that case and rule on it.
The courts job is to hear arguments on laws as to whether or not they are Constitutional (again - like Obamacare). It is not to rule or decide on the Constitution itself. They have zero Constitutional authority to decide that the 1st Amendment means "x". What they can do is decide if a new law which states nobody can yell "fag" in public violates the 1st Amendment or not.
As far as your last piece of nonsense regarding "appellate jurisdiction" - I completely addressed it twice already and explained it to you twice already (see everything I just said above). That applies to laws passed by Congress - not the Constitution itself. I asked you to show me where in the Constitution it grants any body the right to interpret the Constitution itself. Of course, you couldn't do it. So you went out, Googled a few terms, and then just copied and pasted the first thing that you thought sounded "legal".
Look junior....as I said previously in an analogy (to dumb it down to your level since the Constitution is clearly way above you) I asked you to prove you owned a red Lamborghini and you held up a white bunny and went "see...here it is".
Above in the bold/RED sentence is your argument that everything must be delineated in detail within the Constitution being destroyed by one of the Founders who wrote this in 1787. Unlike Jefferson whose 1820 quotation was your single citation during our exchange, Hamilton was actually in the Hall directly taking part in the construction of the Constitution and was therefore able to relate the Founders intent as Publius in the Papers.If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. ~~The Federalist #78, A. Hamilton ~~
Dude.....it's one thing that you were completely ignorant of the fact that Obama was issuing "Presidential Memorandums" (as you proved above). But it's a very special kind of stupid to pretend like you are unaware of Obama's directive to stop anyone from deporting illegal aliens. I mean - the dude held a press conference that was held by every network live. And then it was covered by every network for weeks. Are you really going to pretend like you're not ware of that?If Obama instructed DHS to do something illegal as you CLAIM, cite the statute's Title, Chapter and Section from the Code along with the documentation proving he violated that statute by making an unlawful order! You will never do that you bloody phony! You're all hot air and know NOTHING of value. You simply parrot propaganda.Yes...and if all he was doing was instructing the executive branch to do something that was legal, there weren't be an issue. But guess what angry little asshat? When he tells Homeland Security not to deport illegal aliens, that is a direct violation of the law.Cite them by Name and Number. To make it easy for you, here again are the Executive Order Disposition Tables. Back up your bullshit or go pound sand, shit for brains! Executive Orders Disposition Tables IndexNow here is where you are completely wrong - for starters - Obama issues Executive Orders which usurp the U.S. Constitution.
You can't read AND understand can you! The first paragraph of the piece you cite puts you in a clown suit, fool, and states;Obama and his minions love to crow about his limited use of Executive Orders. But what he fails to mention (and his minions are far too stupid to realize) is that he instead issues "Presidential Memorandums" - as was the case for his insanely illegal "Dream Act".
He has issued over 250 "Presidential Memorandums" along side of his over 200 "Executive Orders".
Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'
Executive memoranda (EM) are used to direct those agencies within the Executive Branch and are Executive actions you blithering idiot! EM's are the instrument used to inform Executive Branch. The President is EMPOWERED by the US Constitution in Article II to do just that you simpering fool!President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
Executive actions and executive Orders are two completely different animals. Bush used Executive memoranda too, just like those Presidents before him, idiot! And how many EM's can you read in the Federal Register compared to the number of EO's? Only EO's can be found in the FR because they are legally binding, half-wit!
I described to CandyCorn the difference between the two and you couldn't read correctly. Then you present an article doing EXACTLY what I said was happening with the purposeful confusion of the far right faction and their "assets" -- to conflate Executive Orders and Executive actions to imply impropriety and unlawful behavior by the Chief Executive. Damn but you are fucking stupid! Learn how to read and understand, dummy!!!!
I'm guessing you have no reading comprehension because you're so angry about looking like a fool in front of everyone? Like how you were crowing about the "limited" use of Executive Orders by Obama while being completely unaware of the Presidential Memorandum's that he had issued which do the exact same thing as the EO's. How embarrassing for you.
By the chief - trying to say that Obama's over 200 "Executive Orders" isn't that much by simply citing the three presidents that used them the most is as stupid as saying that you "only" raped and murdered 4 women and that's not very much compared to Ted Bundy. You want a real comparison? George Washington issued 1 Executive Order in his 8 years as President. One.
Now scream a bunch of profanities and make a fool of yourself again....
The point I made, to which you responded, had to do with the distinction between Executive actions with Executive memoranda being the instrument of relaying instruction AND Executive Orders, which have the force of law. Instead of staying on topic, you move the goal posts with a strawman instead without any foundation to support your baseless declarations, and not address what is actually on the table.
So if you can't back up you claims with anything but your OPINIONS you definitely are simply tap dancing to cover your ignorance.
Cite your proof, fool, or yield! Waiting...
You haven't proven jack shit! All you've provided is your uninformed opinion and that is not proof of anything but your "opinions"! Here is additional proof that your are wrong in your misguided belief that if something is not written precisely within the Constitution then it is unconstitutional, which is bullshit ignorance on your part.I can see why you are so angry. I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no governing body is empowered by the U.S. Constitution to decide what the Constitution says or means (because there is nothing to "interpret" - it says exactly what it says and it means exactly what it means).
And watching you flail around wildly is fall down hilarious. How can Obamacare be "unconstitutional"? Because the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate healthcare and it does not give the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. This was a very easy 9-0 decision. The problem is, Dumbocrats have stacked the Supreme Court with political activists instead of justices. Furthermore, Justice Roberts (the deciding justice in the case) decided to engage in political activism himself. He believed that allowing Obamacare would enrage the American people to the point that they would vote Barack Obama out of the White House (he stated as much when he said in his opinion "elections have consequences"). Yes. Yes the do Justice Roberts. And the system of checks and balances are supposed to limit the damage of those consequences. Instead of trying to influence the American people, he should have simply done his job. But - the Supreme Court had every right to hear that case and rule on it.
The courts job is to hear arguments on laws as to whether or not they are Constitutional (again - like Obamacare). It is not to rule or decide on the Constitution itself. They have zero Constitutional authority to decide that the 1st Amendment means "x". What they can do is decide if a new law which states nobody can yell "fag" in public violates the 1st Amendment or not.
As far as your last piece of nonsense regarding "appellate jurisdiction" - I completely addressed it twice already and explained it to you twice already (see everything I just said above). That applies to laws passed by Congress - not the Constitution itself. I asked you to show me where in the Constitution it grants any body the right to interpret the Constitution itself. Of course, you couldn't do it. So you went out, Googled a few terms, and then just copied and pasted the first thing that you thought sounded "legal".
Look junior....as I said previously in an analogy (to dumb it down to your level since the Constitution is clearly way above you) I asked you to prove you owned a red Lamborghini and you held up a white bunny and went "see...here it is".
Above in the bold/RED sentence is your argument that everything must be delineated in detail within the Constitution being destroyed by one of the Founders who wrote this in 1787. Unlike Jefferson whose 1820 quotation was your single citation during our exchange, Hamilton was actually in the Hall directly taking part in the construction of the Constitution and was therefore able to relate the Founders intent as Publius in the Papers.If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. ~~The Federalist #78, A. Hamilton ~~
The sentence above in BOLD BLUE goes directly to the debunking of your inane assertion. Hamilton made crystal clear that judges, including SCOTUS, were empowered to INTERPERT LAW, that the Constitution was LAW, and therefore, Judges were empowered to interpret the Constitution. Q.E.D.
That was the intent of the Founders from the pen of one of the Founders. That is the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. You are wrong and have been wrong. You have been informed of your error. However, I doubt that the facts will not get through that block of granite on your shoulders, you bloody fool!
