We must restore constitutional government

[P@triot]

They set up the Supreme Court to do exactly that. It's their job to determine what the constitution says.

Really BULLDOG? Please cite the article and section of the U.S. Constitution that tasks the Supreme Court with (and I quote) "determining what the constitution says". Where in the hell did they put in the U.S. Constitution that the Supreme Court was "set up to do exactly that"?

Don't worry stupid - I'll wait.

I'm not going to play that silly game with you. If you don't agree that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the law under the constitution, you are simply wrong, and I have no desire to try to convince a RWNJ of facts that you have already chosen to ignore.

Ahahahahhahaha! You just got bent over, you dumb tool. You made an outrageous accusation which was 100% false, BULLDOG. And when called out on it, you couldn't deliver and you didn't have the humility to admit you lied.

The Supreme Court was not set up to decide what the U.S. Constitution said.

 

[P@triot]

I'm not going to play that silly game with you.

The slogan of lying losers everywhere. He made an outrageous claim and he can't back it up. BULLDOG is more bullshit than anything. He doesn't have a clue about the U.S. Constitution and that was just proven.

 

[P@triot]

If you don't agree that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the law under the constitution

I don't agree, stupid. And the U.S. Constitution proves I'm 100% correct. You're a typical uneducated left-wing slob who believes the bullshit version of America spoonfed to him by idiot progressives of past generations.

 

[BULLDOG]

They set up the Supreme Court to do exactly that. It's their job to determine what the constitution says.

Really BULLDOG? Please cite the article and section of the U.S. Constitution that tasks the Supreme Court with (and I quote) "determining what the constitution says". Where in the hell did they put in the U.S. Constitution that the Supreme Court was "set up to do exactly that"?

Don't worry stupid - I'll wait.

I'm not going to play that silly game with you. If you don't agree that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the law under the constitution, you are simply wrong, and I have no desire to try to convince a RWNJ of facts that you have already chosen to ignore.

Ahahahahhahaha! You just got bent over, you dumb tool. You made an outrageous accusation which was 100% false, BULLDOG. And when called out on it, you couldn't deliver and you didn't have the humility to admit you lied.

The Supreme Court was not set up to decide what the U.S. Constitution said.

What does interpret mean? OK. I'll play a minute or two. Why do we have a Supreme Court?

 

[P@triot]

You know what constitutional government is?

It's government that hasn't been ruled unconstitutional.

You know what pure, unadulterated, idiocy is? It's your post right there.

 

[P@triot]

What does interpret mean? OK. I'll play a minute or two. Why do we have a Supreme Court?

I'll gladly answer that - as soon as you admit that there is no article and section of the U.S. Constitution which establishes the U.S. Supreme Court as the body to decide what the U.S. Constitution says.

Do you even understand how idiotic that is? Why would the founders create a legal document and in it, establish a body to determine what the legal document they were creating said?!? If there was any ambiguity in the document - they would have edited it during the creation! Not left it ambiguous and then use it to create a body to decide later what it meant.

God Almighty, do progressives ever hear themselves speak?

 

[BULLDOG]

What does interpret mean? OK. I'll play a minute or two. Why do we have a Supreme Court?

I'll gladly answer that - as soon as you admit that there is no article and section of the U.S. Constitution which establishes the U.S. Supreme Court as the body to decide what the U.S. Constitution says.

Do you even understand how idiotic that is? Why would the founders create a legal document and in it, establish a body to determine what the legal document they were creating said?!? If there was any ambiguity in the document - they would have edited it during the creation! Not left it ambiguous and then use it to create a body to decide later what it meant.

God Almighty, do progressives ever hear themselves speak?

It might not be worded exactly as you are demanding, but the obligation and right to interpret our laws has been given to the Supreme Court since the constitution was signed. As I said before, if you choose to not believe that, then stay in your ignorance. Not my job to try to convince a RWNJ of anything.

 

[regent]

It's true there is nothing in the Constitution about the Court deciding Constitutional issues so the Court simply declared it indeed had that power in Marbury, America has accepted that Court decision and the Court now decides. It was assumed, however, by most, to be what the framers had in mind and today it is rarely questioned. .

 

[P@triot]

Not my job to try to convince a RWNJ of anything.

Spoken like a true LWNJ caught in a lie...

 

[P@triot]

It's true there is nothing in the Constitution about the Court deciding Constitutional issues so the Court simply declared it indeed had that power in Marbury, America has accepted that Court decision and the Court now decides. It was assumed, however, by most, to be what the framers had in mind and today it is rarely questioned. .

At least you said one thing accurate. Maybe you could be a mentor for BULLDOG? Maybe ease him into reality? You know - since 90% of what you say is inaccurate - maybe that 10% is a good start for BD?

 

[P@triot]

It's true there is nothing in the Constitution about the Court deciding Constitutional issues so the Court simply declared it indeed had that power in Marbury...

That's not exactly what Marbury vs. Madison did. That's the LWNJ revised history version.

 

[P@triot]

the obligation and right to interpret our laws has been given to the Supreme Court since the constitution was signed.

Ok...so just tell the class what article and section gave the U.S. Supreme Court that "obligation", BULLDOG.


Like I said...I'll wait...

 

[P@triot]

It's true there is nothing in the Constitution about the Court deciding Constitutional issues so the Court simply declared it indeed had that power in Marbury, America has accepted that Court decision and the Court now decides.

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." - James Madison

 

[regent]

Our government violates the Constitution routinely at every level. Sure, a lot of what they do can be twisted into being "Constitutional" but they clearly DO violate the original intent that our founders laid out, and they do it often. It's just that over the years, those who have sought to subvert it have found ways to chip away at it, change people's minds about what things mean, convince people that it's supposed to be "flexible" and applicable to "the times". They create crises to exploit and then use fear to get the people to give up a little of their freedom voluntarily.
The founders gave us the tools we need to stop it but we loaned those tools out to the enemy and now the enemy is using them to enslave us all, little by little. And we'll never get them back.

Or as Justice Marshall said in 1819, "But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will continue to arise as long as our system shall exist."

 

[P@triot]

Or as Justice Marshall said in 1819, "But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will continue to arise as long as our system shall exist."

Only by anti-Americans left-wing facists who refuse to accept the constraints placed on power by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The people tasked with enforcing our laws are the same people violating our most important laws....

Beyond the controversial ways stingray technology works, the secrecy and deception law enforcement agencies use to cloak their use of the devices is also troubling. Law enforcement agencies around the country have routinely used the devices without obtaining a warrant from judges. In cases where they did obtain a warrant, they often deceived judges about the nature of the technology they planned to use. Instead of telling judges that they intended to use a stingray or cell site simulator, they have often mischaracterized the technology, describing it as a pen register device instead.

Hacker Lexicon: Stingrays, the Spy Tool the Government Tried, and Failed, to Hide

How? It didn't work for more than five minutes the first time so why would it work now?

 

[regent]

Or as Justice Marshall said in 1819, "But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will continue to arise as long as our system shall exist."

Only by anti-Americans left-wing facists who refuse to accept the constraints placed on power by the U.S. Constitution.

Can you name the biggie constraint that is not acceptable?

 

[P@triot]

Or as Justice Marshall said in 1819, "But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will continue to arise as long as our system shall exist."

Only by anti-Americans left-wing facists who refuse to accept the constraints placed on power by the U.S. Constitution.

Can you name the biggie constraint that is not acceptable?

What constraint isn't to the left? They loathe the entire document. Day in and day out, American's have to fight for their basic rights already guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution because you fascist progressives can't accept liberty.

Every day you attempt to restrict our 1st Amendment rights (speech, press, and religion). You've stripped us of 75% of our 2nd Amendment rights. You've stripped us of 100% of our 4th Amendment rights (thanks to Barack Insane Obama drastically expanding the Patriot Act after promising to shut it down). And nothing pisses you people off like the limitations of power on the Oval Office when when of your own is sitting in it.

 

[regent]

Or as Justice Marshall said in 1819, "But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will continue to arise as long as our system shall exist."

Only by anti-Americans left-wing facists who refuse to accept the constraints placed on power by the U.S. Constitution.

Can you name the biggie constraint that is not acceptable?

What constraint isn't to the left? They loathe the entire document. Day in and day out, American's have to fight for their basic rights already guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution because you fascist progressives can't accept liberty.

Every day you attempt to restrict our 1st Amendment rights (speech, press, and religion). You've stripped us of 75% of our 2nd Amendment rights. You've stripped us of 100% of our 4th Amendment rights (thanks to Barack Insane Obama drastically expanding the Patriot Act after promising to shut it down). And nothing pisses you people off like the limitations of power on the Oval Office when when of your own is sitting in it.

It was the conservative Federalist party that took away our first amendment rights with president Adams, and it meant the end of that conservative party. On the death of that party the period following with no conservative party has gone down in history as the Era of Good Feelings.

Or as Justice Marshall said in 1819, "But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will continue to arise as long as our system shall exist."

Only by anti-Americans left-wing facists who refuse to accept the constraints placed on power by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[regent]

It's true there is nothing in the Constitution about the Court deciding Constitutional issues so the Court simply declared it indeed had that power in Marbury, America has accepted that Court decision and the Court now decides.

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." - James Madison

Yep liberals were against the Marbury decision, but it was Jefferson that fought it tooth and nail. Many of the judges were appointed by Adams after Jefferson had been elected but had not taken office.

People have been complaining about Constitutional government since the second president of the United States made it illegal to criticize presidents and other government officials. One thing is certain, however, we will continue the complaining.

If we would just obey the it - there wouldn't be any complaining.

Why do you think the Articles were dropped? It wasn't because people disobeyed them, they didn't work.