The special insanity of it all

[Jack4jill]

Both sides of the aisle are creating legislation whose sole purpose is to enforce existing legislation. You get that? We already have a law...but we don't enforce it for some reason. And rather than just enforcing the law, we create new laws which say "hey...you must enforce that previous law". Uh....ok??? And who is going to enforce this new law which forces people to enforce the previous law?

Here is the right side of the aisle engaging in this insanity. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution already protects my religious freedoms. But liberals don't care. Well...if they don't care about the freaking Constitution - the highest law in the land - why the frick would they care about or respect the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA)? How about instead of wasting time and resources on creating new legislation, you spend time and resources focusing on how to achieve getting America to adhere to existing legislation?!?

Last year the Supreme Court unilaterally redefined marriage all 50 states. Since that time, faith-based charities, individuals and organizations that disagree with the Court’s redefinition have been attacked for standing up for their religious convictions.

How do we protect these organizations? The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) is legislation that does two major things:

• FADA protects religious organizations and charities from choosing between giving up their tax exempt status and compromising on their beliefs (specifically the belief that marriage is between one woman and one man).
• FADA protects religious institutions, like universities from losing their accreditation and from being pushed out of the public sphere.

The Supreme Court followed the grownups of America. You just aren't one of them, which is why you're still pissed off.

Oh man.....the irony here. Hilarious. Where do I even begin?

I guess, let's start with this. The Supreme Court is not supposed to "follow" anyone. Their job is to examine and understand the U.S. Constitution and then decide if legislation passed by Congress falls within the constraints of the Constitution.

Second, leave it to someone who spells grown ups as one word ("growups") to be completely ignorant of the U.S. Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court

Grownups is one word. And gay marriage was already mostly legal by then.

 

[P@triot]

Sorry you don’t like the Constitution….perhaps you should move to a more backward society where you’ll feel more at home.

Project much? You're the only one who doesn't like the Constitution. I love it and defend it. You hate it and try to usurp it. The fact that you admit you need Hillary to illegal create law through executive fiat instead of amending the Constitution says it all.

Never said anything close to that. Just that Roberts (A Bush appointee) seems to want to apply the court into problem solving.

You're the one insisting that Hillary should put political activists on the Supreme Court and bypass the Constitution to appease your anti-gun position.

And Justice Roberts - despite being fully constitutionally authorized to reject Obamacare stated in his brief that "elections have consequences" and decided to rule on Obama's side. So where do you get that Roberts (of any of them) want to "apply the court into problem solving"?

 

[P@triot]

The 2nd Amendment says what it says.

That is literally the first time you've been right in something you've said. And here's what it says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Well-regulated militia…join a militia, get a gun. Seems pretty simple. So much so, I can’t understand while a paramecium like yourself has trouble understanding it.

Because it doesn't say that. At all. You know. I know it. You know that I know that you know it. It's a petty game you're playing. The Constitution clearly states "the right of the people" - not the militia.

Again, you keep trying to make the asinine case that because the Bill of Rights opens with "Congress shall make no law" that Congress is strictly forbidden from making law. When in fact Congress is the only governing body empowered to make law. You refuse to read the entire thing and accept it. You want to pick out a few words which have nothing to do with a right and apply them as the right (like you asinine "Congress shall make no law" position).

 

[P@triot]

The 2nd Amendment says what it says.

That is literally the first time you've been right in something you've said. And here's what it says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Well-regulated militia…join a militia, get a gun. Seems pretty simple. So much so, I can’t understand while a paramecium like yourself has trouble understanding it.

Besides - like the rest of your weak and silly arguments - I've already addressed and defeated this. I've created the NRM. The National Rottweiler Militia. And no where do you see the words "federal government regulated" or even "state government regulated". It just says "regulated". And I am taking the full and proper responsibility of regulating my militia. Every single American citizen is welcome to join, and there are no membership fees at all.

So anybody (again - as long as they are a legitimate U.S. citizen) is now legally authorized by own and carry firearms - even by your absurd and disingenuous definition. You lose no matter what my dear. Get used to it.

 

[P@triot]

The words “well regulated militia” appear in the amendment. They mean something.

Bwahahahaha! Lots of words appear in the document. All of them "mean something". That's not the issue. The issue is that you intentionally try to pervert them in order to strip people of their Constitutional rights.

The Bill of Rights opens with the following words: “Congress shall make no law”.

Now...by your "logic" this means that Congress is forbidden from making law. Of course, well know the exact opposite is true. Congres is in fact the only body that can create and pass law. But then again, we're not trying to strip people of their Constitutional rights simply because we have an irrational fear/phobia.

Now you’re just being an idiot.

So now you're denying that the Bill of Rights opens with “Congress shall make no law”?!? Seriously? No, really? Bwahahahaha! How can you deny stuff so undeniable and easily provable? The more you find yourself losing this debate, the more bizarre you get.

 

[Jack4jill]

For make no law, we have an awful lot of them.

 

[candycorn]

The words “well regulated militia” appear in the amendment. They mean something.

Bwahahahaha! Lots of words appear in the document. All of them "mean something". That's not the issue. The issue is that you intentionally try to pervert them in order to strip people of their Constitutional rights.

The Bill of Rights opens with the following words: “Congress shall make no law”.

Now...by your "logic" this means that Congress is forbidden from making law. Of course, well know the exact opposite is true. Congres is in fact the only body that can create and pass law. But then again, we're not trying to strip people of their Constitutional rights simply because we have an irrational fear/phobia.

Now you’re just being an idiot.

So now you're denying that the Bill of Rights opens with “Congress shall make no law”?!? Seriously? No, really? Bwahahahaha! How can you deny stuff so undeniable and easily provable? The more you find yourself losing this debate, the more bizarre you get.

Gim

The 2nd Amendment says what it says.

That is literally the first time you've been right in something you've said. And here's what it says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Well-regulated militia…join a militia, get a gun. Seems pretty simple. So much so, I can’t understand while a paramecium like yourself has trouble understanding it.

Besides - like the rest of your weak and silly arguments - I've already addressed and defeated this. I've created the NRM. The National Rottweiler Militia. And no where do you see the words "federal government regulated" or even "state government regulated". It just says "regulated". And I am taking the full and proper responsibility of regulating my militia. Every single American citizen is welcome to join, and there are no membership fees at all.

So anybody (again - as long as they are a legitimate U.S. citizen) is now legally authorized by own and carry firearms - even by your absurd and disingenuous definition. You lose no matter what my dear. Get used to it.

As soon as regulators are finished, you may have your gunz

 

[candycorn]

Sorry you don’t like the Constitution….perhaps you should move to a more backward society where you’ll feel more at home.

Project much? You're the only one who doesn't like the Constitution. I love it and defend it. You hate it and try to usurp it. The fact that you admit you need Hillary to illegal create law through executive fiat instead of amending the Constitution says it all.

Never said anything close to that. Just that Roberts (A Bush appointee) seems to want to apply the court into problem solving.

You're the one insisting that Hillary should put political activists on the Supreme Court and bypass the Constitution to appease your anti-gun position.

And Justice Roberts - despite being fully constitutionally authorized to reject Obamacare stated in his brief that "elections have consequences" and decided to rule on Obama's side. So where do you get that Roberts (of any of them) want to "apply the court into problem solving"?

Just my opinion about Roberts. HRC will appoint like minded judges...all presidents do. Don't like it? What are you going to do about it micro dick?

 

[P@triot]

The words “well regulated militia” appear in the amendment. They mean something.

Bwahahahaha! Lots of words appear in the document. All of them "mean something". That's not the issue. The issue is that you intentionally try to pervert them in order to strip people of their Constitutional rights.

The Bill of Rights opens with the following words: “Congress shall make no law”.

Now...by your "logic" this means that Congress is forbidden from making law. Of course, well know the exact opposite is true. Congres is in fact the only body that can create and pass law. But then again, we're not trying to strip people of their Constitutional rights simply because we have an irrational fear/phobia.

Now you’re just being an idiot.

So now you're denying that the Bill of Rights opens with “Congress shall make no law”?!? Seriously? No, really? Bwahahahaha! How can you deny stuff so undeniable and easily provable? The more you find yourself losing this debate, the more bizarre you get.

Gim

The 2nd Amendment says what it says.

That is literally the first time you've been right in something you've said. And here's what it says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Well-regulated militia…join a militia, get a gun. Seems pretty simple. So much so, I can’t understand while a paramecium like yourself has trouble understanding it.

Besides - like the rest of your weak and silly arguments - I've already addressed and defeated this. I've created the NRM. The National Rottweiler Militia. And no where do you see the words "federal government regulated" or even "state government regulated". It just says "regulated". And I am taking the full and proper responsibility of regulating my militia. Every single American citizen is welcome to join, and there are no membership fees at all.

So anybody (again - as long as they are a legitimate U.S. citizen) is now legally authorized by own and carry firearms - even by your absurd and disingenuous definition. You lose no matter what my dear. Get used to it.

As soon as regulators are finished, you may have your gunz

They are done sweetie. I'm the regulator. I've "regulated" and approved! Done.

 

[P@triot]

Sorry you don’t like the Constitution….perhaps you should move to a more backward society where you’ll feel more at home.

Project much? You're the only one who doesn't like the Constitution. I love it and defend it. You hate it and try to usurp it. The fact that you admit you need Hillary to illegal create law through executive fiat instead of amending the Constitution says it all.

Never said anything close to that. Just that Roberts (A Bush appointee) seems to want to apply the court into problem solving.

You're the one insisting that Hillary should put political activists on the Supreme Court and bypass the Constitution to appease your anti-gun position.

And Justice Roberts - despite being fully constitutionally authorized to reject Obamacare stated in his brief that "elections have consequences" and decided to rule on Obama's side. So where do you get that Roberts (of any of them) want to "apply the court into problem solving"?

Just my opinion about Roberts. HRC will appoint like minded judges...all presidents do. Don't like it? What are you going to do about it micro dick?

Well you seem to loooooove this "micro dick" sweetie. Lord knows you keep coming back to be bent over again and again

You talk with a ton of false bravado when facts have proven you wrong. What happened to you as a child that makes it so hard for you to admit you were wrong and/or accept that you can't exert power over others?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Pfff! You want to talk about "implying"?!?! I never said (or implied) that you said the people have the authority to interpret anything. You're reading comprehension is by far the worst I've ever seen.

You are the one implying that I did simply because you've had your ass kicked with facts. How can a citizen abide by a law if a law is open to interpretation? They can't. It is literally impossible. If I think a Supreme Court justice will say "x" and you think that same Supreme Court justice will say "y" - one of us is going to be wrong and violating the law.

A prime example is how Candy is intentionally trying to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment. Lets say she's right and Hillary Clinton is elected president and then appoints a Supreme Court justice for the express purpose of being a political activist instead of a justice and they ultimately rule that the 2nd Amendment means that only "militias" have the right to keep and bear arms. That would mean for over a quarter of a century, I've been breaking the law as I have firearms and carry them with me everywhere I go. And don't even say "the law changed" after the ruling because it didn't. The Constitution would not have been amended in that scenario and the wording would still be exactly the same (plus, the judicial law is not empowered to create law from the bench).

Liberals refuse to say that lower laws such as rape and speed limits are "open to interpretation" but then try to pretend like the highest law in the land is. It's the epitome of stupid. A law that is "open to interpretation" cannot be obeyed. It's literally impossible. Which is why the law is not "open to interpretation" - from the U.S. Constitution all the way down to a local ordinance.

Now type in all caps again, resort to foul language, and display to everyone you immaturity in dealing with being wrong.

Portions of your last post examined Rot:

You are the one implying that I did simply because you've had your ass kicked with facts.

I have stated my opinions backed up by substantive facts proving the validity and correctness of my opinions. You have utterly FAILED to do that. You have only presented your opinions with NO substantiation or proof of merit to your baseless OPINIONS! That you claim you have somehow "kicked ass" is totally and absolutely absurd to the Nth degree.

You did cite and present ONE (1) item over this entire exchange which Jefferson wrote in a letter in 1820 stating;

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)

But 32 years earlier Jefferson in another letter to James Madison wrote this which is in absolute and total conflict with his later position;

With respect to the Federalist [Papers], the three authors had been named to me. I read it with care, pleasure and improvement, and was satisfied there was nothing in it by one of those hands, and not a great deal by a second. It does the highest honor to the third, as being, in my opinion, the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written. ~~ T. Jefferson, Nov 18, 1788~~ < Letter to James Madison | Teaching American History >

Both the former and the latter are merely opinions albeit in distinct contrast and contradictory and have no legal standing, they do go towards displaying the fact that at the time of ratification, Jefferson agreed in full with the intent of the framers of the Constitution which by inclusion would be the full scope of Federalist #78 and the breadth of Judicial review.

How can a citizen abide by a law if a law is open to interpretation? They can't. It is literally impossible.

A private citizen can't lawfully interpret a law and act upon it in violation of that law because that is the province of the Courts pure and simple. That is also true of the other two branches; they are not authorized to extend their reach beyond their separate powers granted by the Constitution. However, you have proven that a person like yourself can do that very thing with this thread throughout our "discussion" by violating the laws of common sense and logic. However, to assert that, "It is literally impossible" is wrong by your own exemplar with your interpretation of Amendment II. Your logic, or whatever you try to pass off as a logical conclusion is rather harebrained.

If I think a Supreme Court justice will say "x" and you think that same Supreme Court justice will say "y" - one of us is going to be wrong and violating the law.

How in the Hell did you ever come up with that notion? SCOTUS issues ONE (1) decision in a case and that is all. That decision is binding upon ALL when issued. Again your neural pathways used for logical processing are HOSED! What the Hell are you smoking or shooting up?

A prime example is how Candy is intentionally trying to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment. Lets say she's right and Hillary Clinton is elected president and then appoints a Supreme Court justice for the express purpose of being a political activist instead of a justice and they ultimately rule that the 2nd Amendment means that only "militias" have the right to keep and bear arms. That would mean for over a quarter of a century, I've been breaking the law as I have firearms and carry them with me everywhere I go.

Commenting strictly on the premise directly above you have presented, you have just again drawn attention to your gross deficits in your depth of knowledge of the Constitution. Your declaration that you're some kind of Constitutional scholar is once again proven to be baseless and inane. Article I, § 9, Clause 3 clearly states, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." If a law changes, one cannot be held accountable/in jeopardy for previous actions which were lawful in an earlier time. Chalk that up to yet another fail owing to your ignorance of the Constitution.

And don't even say "the law changed" after the ruling because it didn't. The Constitution would not have been amended in that scenario and the wording would still be exactly the same (plus, the judicial law is not empowered to create law from the bench).

In the scenario you laid out, the wording of the Constitution DID NOT CHANGE, of course. The interpretation would be what had change IF the Court majority opinion decided that was the interpretation! But your scenario does not indicate there was any such majority opinion, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that that was your INTENT. And what, exactly, is "judicial law"? In over 70 years I've not come across that term.

Liberals refuse to say that lower laws such as rape and speed limits are "open to interpretation" but then try to pretend like the highest law in the land is. It's the epitome of stupid. A law that is "open to interpretation" cannot be obeyed. It's literally impossible. Which is why the law is not "open to interpretation" - from the U.S. Constitution all the way down to a local ordinance.

That is absolutely absurd. Where is your source for that information to make such an assertion? And who is pretending? And why can re-interpretation not be obeyed given folks are immune for prior actions which were lawful at the time? Why would that be impossible as you assert!

It is fact that the Anti-Federalists lost the argument of non-ratification of the Constitution when the Document was ratified. But even the Anti-Federalists understood what the scope of Article III, §2, Clause 1 which reads in part;

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;

The Anti-Federalists interpreted that same Article, Section and Clause this way in Brutus #11, Jan 31, 1788 when responding to what was written in the proposed Constitution;

The cases arising under the constitution must be different from those arising under the laws, or else the two clauses mean exactly the same thing.

The cases arising under the constitution must include such, as bring into question its meaning, and will require an explanation of the nature and extent of the powers of the different departments under it.

This article, therefore, vests the judicial with a power to resolve all questions that may arise on any case on the construction of the constitution, either in law or in equity.

What the Anti-Federalists determined through their own analysis was that the Constitutional INTENT was contained within Article III, §2, Clause 1, meaning the scope of judicial powers was, indeed, written within the four corners of the Document and part of the Constitution. Further yet, the Anti-Federal analysis AGREES with what A. Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78. These are all ACTUAL FACTS which can be gleaned through research and a knowledge base to work from. Chalk that up to yet another fail owing to your ignorance of the Constitution.

I can't understand why any rational person would post their opinions only, fail and refuse to provide a single shred of verifiable and authoritative evidence and facts in the process of an exchange on this forum, disregard actual verifiable authoritative evidence and facts at every turn and then take victory laps declaring them self as the victor when it is obvious they don't know what the Hell they're talking about except their firmly held opinions. Unbelievable!!!!

Given the Anti-Federalists agree that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that the Federalists agree that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists concur in their belief that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that even Jefferson's letter to Madison during the ratification process agreed that the proposed Constitution was, "...the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written" which would obviously include Article III, §2, Clause 1 of the proposed Constitution at that time defined by Federalist #78 AND that SCOTUS recognizes Article III, §2, Clause 1 stemming from Federalist #78 as authoritative regarding the Framers intent of the full scope of Judicial Review, you are in error AND you are a loser, Rot! Q.E.D.

 

[candycorn]

The words “well regulated militia” appear in the amendment. They mean something.

Bwahahahaha! Lots of words appear in the document. All of them "mean something". That's not the issue. The issue is that you intentionally try to pervert them in order to strip people of their Constitutional rights.

The Bill of Rights opens with the following words: “Congress shall make no law”.

Now...by your "logic" this means that Congress is forbidden from making law. Of course, well know the exact opposite is true. Congres is in fact the only body that can create and pass law. But then again, we're not trying to strip people of their Constitutional rights simply because we have an irrational fear/phobia.

Now you’re just being an idiot.

So now you're denying that the Bill of Rights opens with “Congress shall make no law”?!? Seriously? No, really? Bwahahahaha! How can you deny stuff so undeniable and easily provable? The more you find yourself losing this debate, the more bizarre you get.

Gim

The 2nd Amendment says what it says.

That is literally the first time you've been right in something you've said. And here's what it says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Well-regulated militia…join a militia, get a gun. Seems pretty simple. So much so, I can’t understand while a paramecium like yourself has trouble understanding it.

Besides - like the rest of your weak and silly arguments - I've already addressed and defeated this. I've created the NRM. The National Rottweiler Militia. And no where do you see the words "federal government regulated" or even "state government regulated". It just says "regulated". And I am taking the full and proper responsibility of regulating my militia. Every single American citizen is welcome to join, and there are no membership fees at all.

So anybody (again - as long as they are a legitimate U.S. citizen) is now legally authorized by own and carry firearms - even by your absurd and disingenuous definition. You lose no matter what my dear. Get used to it.

As soon as regulators are finished, you may have your gunz

They are done sweetie. I'm the regulator. I've "regulated" and approved! Done.

Doesn't work that way, need uniforms, interoperability, commonality of mission doctrine codes etc. as always micro dick, you fail

 

[candycorn]

Sorry you don’t like the Constitution….perhaps you should move to a more backward society where you’ll feel more at home.

Project much? You're the only one who doesn't like the Constitution. I love it and defend it. You hate it and try to usurp it. The fact that you admit you need Hillary to illegal create law through executive fiat instead of amending the Constitution says it all.

Never said anything close to that. Just that Roberts (A Bush appointee) seems to want to apply the court into problem solving.

You're the one insisting that Hillary should put political activists on the Supreme Court and bypass the Constitution to appease your anti-gun position.

And Justice Roberts - despite being fully constitutionally authorized to reject Obamacare stated in his brief that "elections have consequences" and decided to rule on Obama's side. So where do you get that Roberts (of any of them) want to "apply the court into problem solving"?

Just my opinion about Roberts. HRC will appoint like minded judges...all presidents do. Don't like it? What are you going to do about it micro dick?

Well you seem to loooooove this "micro dick" sweetie. Lord knows you keep coming back to be bent over again and again

You talk with a ton of false bravado when facts have proven you wrong. What happened to you as a child that makes it so hard for you to admit you were wrong and/or accept that you can't exert power over others?

The courts will agree with me. You're irrelevant

 

[P@triot]

Bwahahahaha! Lots of words appear in the document. All of them "mean something". That's not the issue. The issue is that you intentionally try to pervert them in order to strip people of their Constitutional rights.

The Bill of Rights opens with the following words: “Congress shall make no law”.

Now...by your "logic" this means that Congress is forbidden from making law. Of course, well know the exact opposite is true. Congres is in fact the only body that can create and pass law. But then again, we're not trying to strip people of their Constitutional rights simply because we have an irrational fear/phobia.

Now you’re just being an idiot.

So now you're denying that the Bill of Rights opens with “Congress shall make no law”?!? Seriously? No, really? Bwahahahaha! How can you deny stuff so undeniable and easily provable? The more you find yourself losing this debate, the more bizarre you get.

Gim

That is literally the first time you've been right in something you've said. And here's what it says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Well-regulated militia…join a militia, get a gun. Seems pretty simple. So much so, I can’t understand while a paramecium like yourself has trouble understanding it.

Besides - like the rest of your weak and silly arguments - I've already addressed and defeated this. I've created the NRM. The National Rottweiler Militia. And no where do you see the words "federal government regulated" or even "state government regulated". It just says "regulated". And I am taking the full and proper responsibility of regulating my militia. Every single American citizen is welcome to join, and there are no membership fees at all.

So anybody (again - as long as they are a legitimate U.S. citizen) is now legally authorized by own and carry firearms - even by your absurd and disingenuous definition. You lose no matter what my dear. Get used to it.

As soon as regulators are finished, you may have your gunz

They are done sweetie. I'm the regulator. I've "regulated" and approved! Done.

Doesn't work that way, need uniforms, interoperability, commonality of mission doctrine codes etc. as always micro dick, you fail

Sweetie....none of that is in the Constitution. You don't get to make it up as you go simply because you love it in the ass so much and can't get enough of it from me....

 

[P@triot]

The courts will agree with me. You're irrelevant

Uh-oh....someone is really angry because the facts proved her wrong. By the way, if all of your previous posts didn't prove that you are clueless about the Constitution, this one certainly does. The "courts" can't create law, sweetie. Laws can only be created by the legislative branch. The courts are part of the judicial branch. The fact that you don't know that much fully explains why you can't read or comprehend the U.S. Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

How in the Hell did you ever come up with that notion? SCOTUS issues ONE (1) decision in a case and that is all. That decision is binding upon ALL when issued.

Yeah....when issued. I know you're a bit slow (well....actually....I was just trying to be nice - we know you are a lot slow) so I will try to dumb this down for you. The Constitution says I have a right to keep and bear arms. If that is "open to interpretation" by the Supreme Court, and they decide that I don't have that right, then I have been violating the law from the time I purchased the firearm. Which is why a law cannot be "open to interpretation" you buffoon.

Can you rape a woman and then make the case that you "interpreted" the law differently than the way the person who wrote it did? Of course not you moron. Just like you can't argue that a 25mph speed limit is "open to interpretation". Once a law is passed, it is set in stone and not "open to interpretation". Now, though the legal process it can be repealed. Or it can be altered. But until that time, it is set in stone.

And the U.S. Constitution was signed by the founders, ratified by the states, and is law. It is set and stone and not "open for interpretation". You can amend it if you can get the votes. But that's all junior. It's a fact and none of your nonsense changes it.

 

[P@triot]

The courts will agree with me. You're irrelevant

The courts? The courts? So you admit that being the unhinged authoritarian power-hungry libtard that you are, you could care less about what the people want? And you have no plans to get a legal amendment through congress? Instead you're plan is to usurp the U.S. Constitution, ignore the will of the American people, and hope that the executive branch stacks the judicial branch with some equally unhinged loons such as yourself, and that they make law from the bench?

Ladies and Gentlemen.....I give you.....Candycorn! Her position is "F...America, f.....the Constitution, and f---the American people. I will get what I want".

Your hate for everything about this country, our system of government, and your fellow citizens is palpable. Why don't you leave if you hate it so much?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

How in the Hell did you ever come up with that notion? SCOTUS issues ONE (1) decision in a case and that is all. That decision is binding upon ALL when issued.

Yeah....when issued. I know you're a bit slow (well....actually....I was just trying to be nice - we know you are a lot slow) so I will try to dumb this down for you. The Constitution says I have a right to keep and bear arms. If that is "open to interpretation" by the Supreme Court, and they decide that I don't have that right, then I have been violating the law from the time I purchased the firearm. Which is why a law cannot be "open to interpretation" you buffoon.

Can you rape a woman and then make the case that you "interpreted" the law differently than the way the person who wrote it did? Of course not you moron. Just like you can't argue that a 25mph speed limit is "open to interpretation". Once a law is passed, it is set in stone and not "open to interpretation". Now, though the legal process it can be repealed. Or it can be altered. But until that time, it is set in stone.

And the U.S. Constitution was signed by the founders, ratified by the states, and is law. It is set and stone and not "open for interpretation". You can amend it if you can get the votes. But that's all junior. It's a fact and none of your nonsense changes it.

You don't get to define the content of the Constitution with lies! Here is a repeat of my last post to make you change your mind about your inane compulsion to ignore PROVEN FACTS. My, but you are really getting agitated Oh great self professed Constitutional scholar!

You

are the one implying that I did simply because you've had your ass kicked with facts.

I have stated my opinions backed up by substantive facts proving the validity and correctness of my opinions. You have utterly FAILED to do that. You have only presented your opinions with NO substantiation or proof of merit to your baseless OPINIONS! That you claim you have somehow "kicked ass" is totally and absolutely absurd to the Nth degree.

You did cite and present something ONE (1) item over this entire exchange which Jefferson wrote in a letter in 1820 stating;

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)

But 32 years earlier Jefferson in another letter to James Madison wrote this which is in absolute and total conflict with his later position;

With respect to the Federalist [Papers], the three authors had been named to me. I read it with care, pleasure and improvement, and was satisfied there was nothing in it by one of those hands, and not a great deal by a second. It does the highest honor to the third, as being, in my opinion, the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written. ~~ T. Jefferson, Nov 18, 1788~~ < Letter to James Madison | Teaching American History >

Both the former and the latter are merely opinions albeit in distinct contrast and contradictory and have no legal standing, they do go towards displaying the fact that at the time of ratification, Jefferson agreed in full with the intent of the framers of the Constitution which by inclusion would be the full scope of Federalist #78 and the breadth of Judicial review.

How can a citizen abide by a law if a law is open to interpretation? They can't. It is literally impossible.

A private citizen can't lawfully, but you have proven that a person like yourself can do that very thing with this thread and our "discussion". But that was never asserted NOR IMPLIED IF I understand your cobbled phrasing correctly! However, to assert that, "It is literally impossible" is wrong by your own example by example of your interpretation of Amendment II. Your logic, or whatever you try to pass off as a logical conclusion is rather harebrained!

If I think a Supreme Court justice will say "x" and you think that same Supreme Court justice will say "y" - one of us is going to be wrong and violating the law.

How in the Hell did you ever come up with that notion? SCOTUS issues ONE (1) decision in a case and that is all. That decision is binding upon ALL when issued. Again your neural pathways used for logical processing are HOSED! What the Hell are you smoking or shooting up?

A prime example is how Candy is intentionally trying to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment. Lets say she's right and Hillary Clinton is elected president and then appoints a Supreme Court justice for the express purpose of being a political activist instead of a justice and they ultimately rule that the 2nd Amendment means that only "militias" have the right to keep and bear arms. That would mean for over a quarter of a century, I've been breaking the law as I have firearms and carry them with me everywhere I go.

Commenting strictly on the premise directly above you have presented, you have just again drawn attention to your gross deficits in your depth of knowledge of the Constitution. Your declaration that you're some kind of Constitutional scholar is once again proven to be baseless and inane. Article I, § 9, Clause 3 clearly states, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." If a law changes, one cannot be held accountable/in jeopardy for previous actions which were lawful in an earlier time. Chalk that up to yet another fail owing to your ignorance of the Constitution.

And don't even say "the law changed" after the ruling because it didn't. The Constitution would not have been amended in that scenario and the wording would still be exactly the same (plus, the judicial law is not empowered to create law from the bench).

In the scenario you laid out, the wording of the Constitution DID NOT CHANGE, of course. The interpretation would be what had change IF the Court majority opinion decided that was the interpretation! But your scenario does not indicate there was any such majority opinion, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that that was your INTENT. And what, exactly, is "judicial law"? In over 70 years I've not come across that term.

Liberals refuse to say that lower laws such as rape and speed limits are "open to interpretation" but then try to pretend like the highest law in the land is. It's the epitome of stupid. A law that is "open to interpretation" cannot be obeyed. It's literally impossible. Which is why the law is not "open to interpretation" - from the U.S. Constitution all the way down to a local ordinance.

That is absolutely absurd. Where is your source for that information to make such an assertion? And who is pretending? And why can re-interpretation not be obeyed give folks are immune for prior actions? Why would that be impossible as you assert!

It is fact that the Anti-Federalists lost the argument of non-ratification of the Constitution when the Document was ratified. But even the Anti-Federalists understood what the scope of Article III, §2, Clause 1 which reads in part;

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;

The Anti-Federalists interpreted this way in Brutus #11, Jan 31, 1788 when responding to what was written in the proposed Constitution;

The cases arising under the constitution must be different from those arising under the laws, or else the two clauses mean exactly the same thing.

The cases arising under the constitution must include such, as bring into question its meaning, and will require an explanation of the nature and extent of the powers of the different departments under it.

This article, therefore, vests the judicial with a power to resolve all questions that may arise on any case on the construction of the constitution, either in law or in equity.

What the Anti-Federalists determined through their own analysis was that the Constitutional INTENT was contained within Article III, §2, Clause 1, meaning the scope of judicial powers was, indeed, written within the four corners of the Document and part of the Constitution. Further yet, the Anti-Federal analysis AGREES with what A. Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78. These are all ACTUAL FACTS which can be gleaned through research and a knowledge base to work from. Chalk that up to yet another fail owing to your ignorance of the Constitution.

I can't understand why any rational person would post their opinions only, fail and refuse to provide a single shred of verifiable and authoritative evidence and facts in the process of an exchange on this forum, disregard actual verifiable authoritative evidence and facts at every turn and then take victory laps declaring them self as the victor when it is obvious they don't know what the Hell they're talking about except their firmly held opinions. Unbelievable!!!!

You are in error AND you are a loser, Rot!

Pfff! You want to talk about "implying"?!?! I never said (or implied) that you said the people have the authority to interpret anything. You're reading comprehension is by far the worst I've ever seen.

You are the one implying that I did simply because you've had your ass kicked with facts. How can a citizen abide by a law if a law is open to interpretation? They can't. It is literally impossible. If I think a Supreme Court justice will say "x" and you think that same Supreme Court justice will say "y" - one of us is going to be wrong and violating the law.

A prime example is how Candy is intentionally trying to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment. Lets say she's right and Hillary Clinton is elected president and then appoints a Supreme Court justice for the express purpose of being a political activist instead of a justice and they ultimately rule that the 2nd Amendment means that only "militias" have the right to keep and bear arms. That would mean for over a quarter of a century, I've been breaking the law as I have firearms and carry them with me everywhere I go. And don't even say "the law changed" after the ruling because it didn't. The Constitution would not have been amended in that scenario and the wording would still be exactly the same (plus, the judicial law is not empowered to create law from the bench).

Liberals refuse to say that lower laws such as rape and speed limits are "open to interpretation" but then try to pretend like the highest law in the land is. It's the epitome of stupid. A law that is "open to interpretation" cannot be obeyed. It's literally impossible. Which is why the law is not "open to interpretation" - from the U.S. Constitution all the way down to a local ordinance.

Portions of your last post examined Rot:

You are the one implying that I did simply because you've had your ass kicked with facts.

I have stated my opinions backed up by substantive facts proving the validity and correctness of my opinions. You have utterly FAILED to do that. You have only presented your opinions with NO substantiation or proof of merit to your baseless OPINIONS! That you claim you have somehow "kicked ass" is totally and absolutely absurd to the Nth degree.

You did cite and present ONE (1) item over this entire exchange which Jefferson wrote in a letter in 1820 stating;

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)

But 32 years earlier Jefferson in another letter to James Madison wrote this which is in absolute and total conflict with his later position;

With respect to the Federalist [Papers], the three authors had been named to me. I read it with care, pleasure and improvement, and was satisfied there was nothing in it by one of those hands, and not a great deal by a second. It does the highest honor to the third, as being, in my opinion, the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written. ~~ T. Jefferson, Nov 18, 1788~~ < Letter to James Madison | Teaching American History >

Both the former and the latter are merely opinions albeit in distinct contrast and contradictory and have no legal standing, they do go towards displaying the fact that at the time of ratification, Jefferson agreed in full with the intent of the framers of the Constitution which by inclusion would be the full scope of Federalist #78 and the breadth of Judicial review.

How can a citizen abide by a law if a law is open to interpretation? They can't. It is literally impossible.

A private citizen can't lawfully interpret a law and act upon it in violation of that law because that is the province of the Courts pure and simple. That is also true of the other two branches; they are not authorized to extend their reach beyond their separate powers granted by the Constitution. However, you have proven that a person like yourself can do that very thing with this thread throughout our "discussion" by violating the laws of common sense and logic. However, to assert that, "It is literally impossible" is wrong by your own exemplar with your interpretation of Amendment II. Your logic, or whatever you try to pass off as a logical conclusion is rather harebrained.

If I think a Supreme Court justice will say "x" and you think that same Supreme Court justice will say "y" - one of us is going to be wrong and violating the law.

How in the Hell did you ever come up with that notion? SCOTUS issues ONE (1) decision in a case and that is all. That decision is binding upon ALL when issued. Again your neural pathways used for logical processing are HOSED! What the Hell are you smoking or shooting up?

A prime example is how Candy is intentionally trying to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment. Lets say she's right and Hillary Clinton is elected president and then appoints a Supreme Court justice for the express purpose of being a political activist instead of a justice and they ultimately rule that the 2nd Amendment means that only "militias" have the right to keep and bear arms. That would mean for over a quarter of a century, I've been breaking the law as I have firearms and carry them with me everywhere I go.

Commenting strictly on the premise directly above you have presented, you have just again drawn attention to your gross deficits in your depth of knowledge of the Constitution. Your declaration that you're some kind of Constitutional scholar is once again proven to be baseless and inane. Article I, § 9, Clause 3 clearly states, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." If a law changes, one cannot be held accountable/in jeopardy for previous actions which were lawful in an earlier time. Chalk that up to yet another fail owing to your ignorance of the Constitution.

And don't even say "the law changed" after the ruling because it didn't. The Constitution would not have been amended in that scenario and the wording would still be exactly the same (plus, the judicial law is not empowered to create law from the bench).

In the scenario you laid out, the wording of the Constitution DID NOT CHANGE, of course. The interpretation would be what had change IF the Court majority opinion decided that was the interpretation! But your scenario does not indicate there was any such majority opinion, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that that was your INTENT. And what, exactly, is "judicial law"? In over 70 years I've not come across that term.

Liberals refuse to say that lower laws such as rape and speed limits are "open to interpretation" but then try to pretend like the highest law in the land is. It's the epitome of stupid. A law that is "open to interpretation" cannot be obeyed. It's literally impossible. Which is why the law is not "open to interpretation" - from the U.S. Constitution all the way down to a local ordinance.

That is absolutely absurd. Where is your source for that information to make such an assertion? And who is pretending? And why can re-interpretation not be obeyed given folks are immune for prior actions which were lawful at the time? Why would that be impossible as you assert!

It is fact that the Anti-Federalists lost the argument of non-ratification of the Constitution when the Document was ratified. But even the Anti-Federalists understood what the scope of Article III, §2, Clause 1 which reads in part;

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;

The Anti-Federalists interpreted that same Article, Section and Clause this way in Brutus #11, Jan 31, 1788 when responding to what was written in the proposed Constitution;

The cases arising under the constitution must be different from those arising under the laws, or else the two clauses mean exactly the same thing.

The cases arising under the constitution must include such, as bring into question its meaning, and will require an explanation of the nature and extent of the powers of the different departments under it.

This article, therefore, vests the judicial with a power to resolve all questions that may arise on any case on the construction of the constitution, either in law or in equity.

What the Anti-Federalists determined through their own analysis was that the Constitutional INTENT was contained within Article III, §2, Clause 1, meaning the scope of judicial powers was, indeed, written within the four corners of the Document and part of the Constitution. Further yet, the Anti-Federal analysis AGREES with what A. Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78. These are all ACTUAL FACTS which can be gleaned through research and a knowledge base to work from. Chalk that up to yet another fail owing to your ignorance of the Constitution.

I can't understand why any rational person would post their opinions only, fail and refuse to provide a single shred of verifiable and authoritative evidence and facts in the process of an exchange on this forum, disregard actual verifiable authoritative evidence and facts at every turn and then take victory laps declaring them self as the victor when it is obvious they don't know what the Hell they're talking about except their firmly held opinions. Unbelievable!!!!

Given the Anti-Federalists agree that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that the Federalists agree that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists concur in their belief that Article III, §2, Clause 1 was the framers intent, that even Jefferson's letter to Madison during the ratification process agreed that the proposed Constitution was, "...the best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written" which would obviously include Article III, §2, Clause 1 of the proposed Constitution at that time defined by Federalist #78 AND that SCOTUS recognizes Article III, §2, Clause 1 stemming from Federalist #78 as authoritative regarding the Framers intent of the full scope of Judicial Review, you are in error AND you are a loser, Rot! Q.E.D.

 

[bripat9643]

The point is to get the politics out of it by updating the source code—the Constitution. Then it wouldn’t matter what Scumbag Reid or Scumbag Boehner or what future scumbags want….votes take place, the voters (the people) get to see where every member of congress stands on bills that are brought up.

I don't disagree with you on that at all. Again, so long as it is amended legally. 3/4's of the states, 2/3's of the House, and 2/3's of the Senate.

By the way - for all of your apparent love of Constitutional government (aside from your clear contempt for the 2nd Amendment and your obvious disingenuous attempt to misinterpret), why have I see no outrage by you for Obama's gross violations of the Constitution? Obamacare - 100% illegal. His "presidential memo" on the "Dream Act" - 100% illegal.

Something tells me your sudden love of the U.S. Constitution is linked only to the fact that Republican's now control the House and Senate.

The defects in the Constitution will never be fixed if Congress has any say in the matter. That's why we need an Article 5 convention to add amendments. One of the first should be term limits for Congress. Another should be an amendment allowing the states to overturn a Supreme Court decision. A number of other interesting ideas have been proposed.

 

[P@triot]

The point is to get the politics out of it by updating the source code—the Constitution. Then it wouldn’t matter what Scumbag Reid or Scumbag Boehner or what future scumbags want….votes take place, the voters (the people) get to see where every member of congress stands on bills that are brought up.

I don't disagree with you on that at all. Again, so long as it is amended legally. 3/4's of the states, 2/3's of the House, and 2/3's of the Senate.

By the way - for all of your apparent love of Constitutional government (aside from your clear contempt for the 2nd Amendment and your obvious disingenuous attempt to misinterpret), why have I see no outrage by you for Obama's gross violations of the Constitution? Obamacare - 100% illegal. His "presidential memo" on the "Dream Act" - 100% illegal.

Something tells me your sudden love of the U.S. Constitution is linked only to the fact that Republican's now control the House and Senate.

The defects in the Constitution will never happen if Congress has any say in the matter. That's why we need an Article 5 convention to add amendments. One of the first should be term limits for Congress. Another should be an amendment allowing the states to overturn a Supreme Court decision. A number of other interesting ideas have been proposed.

The thing is - none of this is necessary really. For starters, all we need to do is enforce the 10th Amendment (instead of adding additional amendments). But secondly, liberals don't adhere to the existing Constitution. So there is no reason to believe that they would adhere to any new amendments.