Watch how easy these Liberals sign to Repeal the FIRST amendment

[Oldguy]

No, but the Supreme Court can, and that's exactly what it does. In fact, turds like you are onstatnly arguing that the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says.

Uh...yeah. The Supreme Court gets to do that. It's their right and they have the power granted them by the Constitution and Marbury vs. Madison. Got a problem with that?

If "functioning quite well" means it has been functioning to destroy any semblance of the document actually means, then, yes, it has been functioning quite well.

It has? Show me.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No, but the Supreme Court can, and that's exactly what it does. In fact, turds like you are onstatnly arguing that the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says.

Uh...yeah. The Supreme Court gets to do that. It's their right and they have the power granted them by the Constitution and Marbury vs. Madison. Got a problem with that?

If "functioning quite well" means it has been functioning to destroy any semblance of the document actually means, then, yes, it has been functioning quite well.

It has? Show me.

What would you like to know?
Or does the fact that the SCOTUS is not loaded with radical leftists that bugs you?

 

[francoHFW]

"Radical leftists" actually being pragmatic centrists, superdupes of the greedy idiot new GOP. see sig...

OP- RW insanity 24/7

 

[FA_Q2]

That's a dumb question. Of course it does.

AMENDMENT XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That's a dumb response.

IF there were a right to privacy, then wouldn't one be protected for their person and their papers?

Ah, but "privacy" means "abortion" to you of the left - and NOTHING else.



So, a person has no right to privacy, nor to be secure in their person and papers, then?

It's all Constitutional and done with due process, whether you like it or not.

You've never actually read the constitution, nor even portions of it, have you?

You can't just pretend the Constitution says what you want it to say and ignore the rest. We have a whole system of courts, precedents and statutes to define the limits of government power under that Constitution and it has been functioning quite well now for over 200 years.

If you don't like it, move.

I feel the need to add to this as well. Many here seem to think that the Bill of Rights is sacred in some way and when talking about the constitution they tend to refer to that only and not the rest of the amendments. I know that no one want a return to slavery or reinstating the three fifths clause but for some reason it seems that some people here do not feel that the other amendments are on the same ‘level’ as the BoR. That is false. It is simply not possible for the collection of income taxes to be unconstitutional as the 16th is no more or less in the constitution than the first. Granted, that does not mean that laws dealing with forms or other actions by the IRS cannot be unconstitutional, they can, but it does mean that any right to privacy is going to automatically trump the collection of taxes.

No, but the Supreme Court can, and that's exactly what it does. In fact, turds like you are onstatnly arguing that the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says.

Uh...yeah. The Supreme Court gets to do that. It's their right and they have the power granted them by the Constitution and Marbury vs. Madison. Got a problem with that?

Well, I would disagree slightly. The SC does not get to determine what the constitution says per say, just interpret what is already there. Though that may seem like a distinction without difference, I think that it is an important distinction. They cannot add or subtract but they certainly have the requirement to determine how the constitution is actually applied as law.

 

[Oldguy]

No, but the Supreme Court can, and that's exactly what it does. In fact, turds like you are onstatnly arguing that the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says.

Uh...yeah. The Supreme Court gets to do that. It's their right and they have the power granted them by the Constitution and Marbury vs. Madison. Got a problem with that?

If "functioning quite well" means it has been functioning to destroy any semblance of the document actually means, then, yes, it has been functioning quite well.

It has? Show me.

What would you like to know?
Or does the fact that the SCOTUS is not loaded with radical leftists that bugs you?

Show me some case law where the SC is destroying any semblance of the Constitution. I'd be especially interested to see evidence that they've been doing it on purpose.

Got anything?

 

[ScienceRocks]

"Radical leftists" actually being pragmatic centrists, superdupes of the greedy idiot new GOP. see sig...

OP- RW insanity 24/7

Dude, how much drugs did you take part in as a younger man?

 

[Oldguy]

Well, I would disagree slightly. The SC does not get to determine what the constitution says per say, just interpret what is already there. Though that may seem like a distinction without difference, I think that it is an important distinction. They cannot add or subtract but they certainly have the requirement to determine how the constitution is actually applied as law.

Alright, minor point taken. You are correct. But it does not change the fact that it is the Supreme Court which has the power and authority to do that. It is still the Court of last appeal and no amount of moaning and whining by those who don't like whatever the Court decides will change that, will it?

It always strikes me as humorous, yet oddly disturbing, that people only want to accuse the Court of doing something wrong when it involves a ruling they don't like. You never hear anyone accuse the Court of overstepping or legislating from the bench when it's a subject in which they are in agreement with the ruling.

 

[Truthmatters]

I sign even stuff i dont agree with if its a petition to put an issue on the ballot.

Do you undestand why I would do that?

Would you sing a petition to bring back slavery?

I do have a nice voice but I will not sing anything for you.


Heres a tip about the slavery question.

I would not sign a petition to bring back slavery as that is unconstitutional.

That is what I would tell you when you brought to me your petition to put slavery on the ballot.

Your not very good at this are you

 

[Truthmatters]

I have looked petitioners in the eye and told them I did not agree with their bill but would sign it so the question could be put before the people so they can be proved wrong by the people.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I sign even stuff i dont agree with if its a petition to put an issue on the ballot.

Do you undestand why I would do that?

Would you sing a petition to bring back slavery?

I do have a nice voice but I will not sing anything for you.


Heres a tip about the slavery question.

I would not sign a petition to bring back slavery as that is unconstitutional.

That is what I would tell you when you brought to me your petition to put slavery on the ballot.

Your not very good at this are you

I wouldn't either. I don't believe any human being no matter what, should ever be enslaved.

 

[Truthmatters]

republicans wont let votes happen that they KNOW they will lose.

 

[Truthmatters]

that is how you have been opperating congress for some years now.

If you would lose the vote you just prevent the vote from happening

 

[Truthmatters]

your party HATES democracy

 

[ScienceRocks]

your party HATES democracy

Your party wants the rest of the country to become like the ghetto's of Chicago or Detroit. Really good goal you got there....

 

[Truthmatters]

dear fool ,


the liberal parts of this country are the money engine

 

[Truthmatters]

The republican hate democracy just ask them.

they try to change the very definition of the word to pretend the USA is not a democracy.


when did you fools buy into hating democracy?

remember you praised fighting for Democracy in Iraq?

then all of the sudden you claimed Democracy is bad.

 

[bripat9643]

I sign even stuff i dont agree with if its a petition to put an issue on the ballot.

Do you undestand why I would do that?

Would you sing a petition to bring back slavery?

I do have a nice voice but I will not sing anything for you.


Heres a tip about the slavery question.

I would not sign a petition to bring back slavery as that is unconstitutional.

That is what I would tell you when you brought to me your petition to put slavery on the ballot.

Your not very good at this are you

But you would sign a petition to outlaw the first amendment?

 

[bripat9643]

I have looked petitioners in the eye and told them I did not agree with their bill but would sign it so the question could be put before the people so they can be proved wrong by the people.

If I don't approve of their bill, I don't sign their petition. I don't give commies any chances to restrict my freedoms.

 

[bripat9643]

your party HATES democracy

Democracy is rule by the dumbest 51% of the electorate.

 

[Ernie S.]

I guarantee that I could get a lot of people to sign a petition that promotes changing our Constitution so that it is a requirement for teachers to teach from the Bible and pray together in our public schools.

If you told them obama supports that, yes, you could.