Where does the constitution give federal judges the power to repeal laws?

[emilynghiem]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

The don't repeal laws.

Go back to high school take U.S. Government.

Partial credit.

While it is TRUE that the SCOTUS does not and cannot "repeal" laws, they can and do strike laws down as having violated the Constitution. That does have the effect of repealing those laws. In fact, to have that effect is the exact point of striking them down as unconstitutional.

IlarMeilyr
Yes and No.
It strikes down that particular law as unconstitutional to enforce.

But as with the case of Marriage laws in KY, just because the Supreme Court
made a ruling, didn't mean the State Laws in KY had changed yet, and that is why people took issue and demanded that. Until it was completely clarified what the state laws are going to be if something was struck down, there was room for question that has yet to be answered.

the state legislature had not come back yet and written a replacement law.
so people are debating if states have rights to determine these laws,
then the states have to take responsibility to replace them. but if the
federal courts have taken over jurisdiction, then the federal level needs to specify these
policies not the states. so make up your mind which way is it.


Of course my answer is neither the federal courts nor states have the right to
make decisions on marriage laws WITHOUT consensus/consent by the public affected
since these involved >> FAITH BASED beliefs << . if the state passes laws about anything
FAITH BASED such as marriage, orientation/sexuality that isn't scientifically proven,
then the public would have to AGREE on that policy or it's a violation of religious freedom and
equal protection of creed from discrimination by govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Supreme Court has no authority to declare any law unconstitutional. The Court attempted to give itself that power in the Case Marbury vs Madison.

The authority for this type of judicial review must be granted by the we the people. We have never done so. The Constitution gives the Court no such authority. Look it up.

Dear WelfareQueen and jillian
I would totally back WQ position as a political belief that cannot be denied by govt.
Many people would agree that the Judiciary has overstepped its original constitutional duties and is running unchecked, outside the intended
checks and balances.

I totally agree if people do not hold this to be completely legal and constitutional.
Defend that right to dissent under religious freedom, 1st 14th and 10th Amendments.

jillian I also respect your viewpoint as a valid interpretation of law
and merely ask that followers of this interpretation take responsibility for paying for the cost of enforcing it.

Since both views constitute political beliefs,
it only makes sense to me that the different parties pay for the consequences of their interpretation,
and quit imposing on each other.

Pay for your own system of beliefs,
similar to Catholics, Baptists, Hindus and Muslims,
and we can all get along and quit bullying back and forth,
trying to coerce the other groups to pay for things not everyone believes in.

 

[emilynghiem]

The very first words of the constitution after the preamble are

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states

Writing laws and repealing laws are legislative powers and yet federal judges are constantly declaring laws unconstitutional and repealing them and sometimes even writing a new law in its place!

Thank you ShootSpeeders
I align more with you and WelfareQueen on this
because of the political history of legal and judicial abuse that otherwise has no check after the fact.

I support jillian and JakeStarkey
in respecting the Judiciary and the precedent set and followed,
where we'd have to AGREE how to go about reforming the current
political process and all laws, past present and future.

As Jake has argued with me time and again, nobody can just randomly
jump up and declare all such rulings by the judiciary to be voided. If people
have been following this system, we'd have to agree how to go about changing it,
and at least JakeStarkey and I AGREE to use the given system to change things
and correct things following the given democratic process.

Regardless of our different views, where I believe all sides all beliefs
should be equally included and protected,
at the very least I would call for a consensus on faith-based beliefs and policies
that we DON'T agree on, by nature of our personally held beliefs that will not change and cannot be forced to by govt. [ie if we form a consensus agreement amoung ourselves personally FIRST, then we can go about taking the steps through the govt process of reforming things formally, and not have political chaos, but agreement step by step so it is orderly and everyone's beliefs
are included and protected instead of threatened by conflicting ideologies.]

I can respect all your views as your right to your beliefs,
and still ask for govt decisions to be made with respect to these views equally.

We don't have to agree on our views
in order to form a consensus on the policies we are in dispute over
because of our conflicting beliefs. We shouldnthave to compromise
one sides views for another in order to resolve a conflict.

If it is THAT contentious, that is a #1 sign that BELIEFS are involved
and THAT is why we can't reach agreement. So where inherent BELIEFS
are involved, this is where govt was not designed to intervene, but the
Constitution was designed to keep govt in check and NOT infringe or dictate beliefs for the people.

The Constitution states that religious freedom is not to be prohibited by govt. So if the govt is abused to prohibit one view from being equally recognized and protected as the other,
that is unconstitutional. If we all want our beliefs protected under the Constitution,
it makes sense we should enforce like protection of other beliefs equally. We all deserve equal security that our beliefs will be represented and protected equally, and none should be discriminated against, excluded or penalized. If we don't resolve this, then ALL sides feel threatened and nobody has equal security or protection; all our rights are violated when govtis abused to cross the line into areas of faith-based beliefs not all people share or agree on.

If we don't appreciate other parties pushing their beliefs through their party
through govt at the expense of our own, what business do we have practicing this same bullying tactics?

A threat to one is a threat to all. United we win, divided we fall.

 

[emilynghiem]

Oh I almost forgot to ask! What particular law that violated the constitution do you not like?

TheOldSchool regardless of my personal like or dislike
the ACA mandates violated the Constitution by imposing a faith-based system on
taxpayers who didn't get to vote on an Amendment to the Constitution before
granting federal govt new powers to regulate health care,which involves spiritual and political BELIEFS.
(about the right to health care as a belief, limits on govt and states rights as a belief,
beliefs about birth control reproductive health policies abortion etc., spiritual healing
and what constitutes a religious exemption allowed or disallowed by govt (ie regulation of tax exemption on the basis of
affiliation with religious memberships and which were approved or not approved by govt)

You can believe that Christianity and spiritual healing are the solution to social ills and will save lives, money and resources. But this must be freely chosen and the choice to fund or participate cannot be regulated, required or penalized by govt. No matter how good a solution it may be.

Same with health care.
You can believe that mandating health care through govt is the solution to ills,
but this belief cannot be forced on citizens under penalty of law and regulated through taxes.
Like any other belief, right or wrong good or bad,
it is not the govt's role or position to impose it on the public. Even if it means saving lives.

If right to life cannot be forced on people because of faith based arguments,
neither can right to health care be forced through govt. Both could be argued as saving lives,
but free choice/free exercise of religion cannot be compromised (not unless all the public AGREES to forfeit freedom for security, or people have committed crimes, been convicted through due process and have been deprived of freedom as part of the consequences).

If the public AGREES to expand the powers of federal govt
then this should first require states to vote on an Amendment.

If people don't even agree on that step,
then we need to have a Constitutional conference and agree what the rules
and process/procedures are instead of fighting to accept, reject, impose or refuse Judicial rulings on ACA, as one prominent example we can use to resolve the same issue globally for other cases.

Under Robert's Rules of order, there is a procedure of questioning if proper steps were skipped in the process.
Either point of information, point of order, or something like that.

We need to call a huge "point of order" on the whole process
and iron out where we agree or disagree to get back on track
instead of dividing the ship and trying to go two different directions at once.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily believes that "the ACA mandates violated the Constitution by imposing a faith-based system on taxpayers who didn't get to vote on an Amendment to the Constitution before granting federal govt new powers to regulate health care", which, of course, is an erroneous statement. Anyone, regardless of faith or no faith, is the in the program. An Amendment was not required according (twice) to SCOTUS.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily believes that "the ACA mandates violated the Constitution by imposing a faith-based system on taxpayers who didn't get to vote on an Amendment to the Constitution before granting federal govt new powers to regulate health care", which, of course, is an erroneous statement. Anyone, regardless of faith or no faith, is the in the program. An Amendment was not required according (twice) to SCOTUS.

Dear JakeStarkey
both our arguments are circular, do you realize.

someone like you who believes the SCOTUS has the right to make a decision about
a faith based policy (which you do not see as faith based and thus not unconstitutional overreaching by govt)
would go with your interpretation

I agree that you and others have the right to this interpretation

someone like me who recognizes political beliefs are at stake and in conflict,
and believes these should be protected equally under law,
does NOT recognize either the federal govt/Congress/SCOTUS has the right to decide such a dispute
but any outcome must be agreed upon by the people so nobody's beliefs or creeds are violated,
would say an Amendment IS required
and the SCOTUS should NOT decide this, but the people have the right to their own beliefs equally under law.

Now do you respect my right to my interpretation
to the same degree that I respect yours?

If I respect your views equally as my own, that is Constitutionally consistent.

If you put YOUR interpretation above mine, that is not equal.

I am saying consensus would be required to protect
your interpretation equally as mine. I am open to calling for a separation by party,
in order to protect people of your views equally as protecting people who share mine.
there are ways we can respect and protect both schools of thought equally,
instead of imposing one way over another, causing constant conflict.

If you do not agree, that is part of your beliefs, and I believe that should be respected, too.

So I understand if you cannot, by your belief system, even fathom my beliefs.
That is part of the nature of these beliefs, especially if you hold
yours so strongly, mine are void and nonexistent, unquestionable "outside the realm of law and reality"
compared with your own beliefs.

I accept that, as part of your beliefs.
Sorry if you cannot see this due to your views not including mine as valid.

I understand, and thank you for demonstrating how
serious this situation is regarding political beliefs,
and how people cannot help having the views we hold,
and cannot help that we cannot change how we see things.

This is very serious. You make it clear how deep it goes. Thank you!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Emily believes that "the ACA mandates violated the Constitution by imposing a faith-based system on taxpayers who didn't get to vote on an Amendment to the Constitution before granting federal govt new powers to regulate health care", which, of course, is an erroneous statement. Anyone, regardless of faith or no faith, is the in the program. An Amendment was not required according (twice) to SCOTUS.

Needless to say she's wrong.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied – this fact of law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, the roles and scope of SCOTUS power will not be reduced to pre-1803.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Emily believes that "the ACA mandates violated the Constitution by imposing a faith-based system on taxpayers who didn't get to vote on an Amendment to the Constitution before granting federal govt new powers to regulate health care", which, of course, is an erroneous statement. Anyone, regardless of faith or no faith, is the in the program. An Amendment was not required according (twice) to SCOTUS.

Dear JakeStarkey
both our arguments are circular, do you realize.

someone like you who believes the SCOTUS has the right to make a decision about
a faith based policy (which you do not see as faith based and thus not unconstitutional overreaching by govt)
would go with your interpretation

I agree that you and others have the right to this interpretation

someone like me who recognizes political beliefs are at stake and in conflict,
and believes these should be protected equally under law,
does NOT recognize either the federal govt/Congress/SCOTUS has the right to decide such a dispute
but any outcome must be agreed upon by the people so nobody's beliefs or creeds are violated,
would say an Amendment IS required
and the SCOTUS should NOT decide this, but the people have the right to their own beliefs equally under law.

Now do you respect my right to my interpretation
to the same degree that I respect yours?

If I respect your views equally as my own, that is Constitutionally consistent.

If you put YOUR interpretation above mine, that is not equal.

I am saying consensus would be required to protect
your interpretation equally as mine. I am open to calling for a separation by party,
in order to protect people of your views equally as protecting people who share mine.
there are ways we can respect and protect both schools of thought equally,
instead of imposing one way over another, causing constant conflict.

If you do not agree, that is part of your beliefs, and I believe that should be respected, too.

So I understand if you cannot, by your belief system, even fathom my beliefs.
That is part of the nature of these beliefs, especially if you hold
yours so strongly, mine are void and nonexistent, unquestionable "outside the realm of law and reality"
compared with your own beliefs.

I accept that, as part of your beliefs.
Sorry if you cannot see this due to your views not including mine as valid.

I understand, and thank you for demonstrating how
serious this situation is regarding political beliefs,
and how people cannot help having the views we hold,
and cannot help that we cannot change how we see things.

This is very serious. You make it clear how deep it goes. Thank you!

One is at liberty to believe whatever he wants, with the understanding that those beliefs in conflict with Constitutional jurisprudence are subjective, devoid of legal authority, and as a fact of law wrong.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily believes that "the ACA mandates violated the Constitution by imposing a faith-based system on taxpayers who didn't get to vote on an Amendment to the Constitution before granting federal govt new powers to regulate health care", which, of course, is an erroneous statement. Anyone, regardless of faith or no faith, is the in the program. An Amendment was not required according (twice) to SCOTUS.

Dear JakeStarkey
both our arguments are circular, do you realize.

someone like you who believes the SCOTUS has the right to make a decision about
a faith based policy (which you do not see as faith based and thus not unconstitutional overreaching by govt)
would go with your interpretation

I agree that you and others have the right to this interpretation

someone like me who recognizes political beliefs are at stake and in conflict,
and believes these should be protected equally under law,
does NOT recognize either the federal govt/Congress/SCOTUS has the right to decide such a dispute
but any outcome must be agreed upon by the people so nobody's beliefs or creeds are violated,
would say an Amendment IS required
and the SCOTUS should NOT decide this, but the people have the right to their own beliefs equally under law.

Now do you respect my right to my interpretation
to the same degree that I respect yours?

If I respect your views equally as my own, that is Constitutionally consistent.

If you put YOUR interpretation above mine, that is not equal.

I am saying consensus would be required to protect
your interpretation equally as mine. I am open to calling for a separation by party,
in order to protect people of your views equally as protecting people who share mine.
there are ways we can respect and protect both schools of thought equally,
instead of imposing one way over another, causing constant conflict.

If you do not agree, that is part of your beliefs, and I believe that should be respected, too.

So I understand if you cannot, by your belief system, even fathom my beliefs.
That is part of the nature of these beliefs, especially if you hold
yours so strongly, mine are void and nonexistent, unquestionable "outside the realm of law and reality"
compared with your own beliefs.

I accept that, as part of your beliefs.
Sorry if you cannot see this due to your views not including mine as valid.

I understand, and thank you for demonstrating how
serious this situation is regarding political beliefs,
and how people cannot help having the views we hold,
and cannot help that we cannot change how we see things.

This is very serious. You make it clear how deep it goes. Thank you!

One is at liberty to believe whatever he wants, with the understanding that those beliefs in conflict with Constitutional jurisprudence are subjective, devoid of legal authority, and as a fact of law wrong.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
And, likewise, those on the side of Constitutional checks on govt
would say the same of you and your interpretation that allows
the Judiciary to cross the line between separate of church and state
and imposed faith-based bias and beliefs.

it's an equal conflict of ideologies.
Just like the people who cannot separate their Christian beliefs from govt,
the liberals who can't do this either are just as much at fault as the Christians who cross that line!

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, the roles and scope of SCOTUS power will not be reduced to pre-1803.

Not reducing power but empowering the public equally to resolve their OWN confiicts
and keep these OUT of govt.

I've met many couples who mediated and settled their own divorce and custody agreements
so they wouldn't be told what to do by the state or courts.

When everyone gets as wise, we can manage our own programs to the maximum we can,
and allot only the duties and management to state and federal govt that WE AGREE TO.

NOT this business of people PROTESTING the federal govt
interfering with reproductive choices, health care management, etc. etc.

We can build and run programs ourselves, create jobs and educational systems
training people to manage and maintain health care.

So just because the people take on more responsibility
doesn't "take away" from the power of the judiciary to decide matters brought before them.

We would just not bog down the judiciary by bringing personal matters into court
that people can resolve ourselves, such as marriage laws, homosexuality, health care, etc.

These only escalate to higher levels because people weren't solving
these problems directly ourselves. We don't have to "run to court"
every time we have a conflict in beliefs! What are we going to do, hire lawyers and
sue over every act of communion, baptism, funeral services, baby showers, etc.
every time we have a disagreement over whether to include or exclude someone as "discrimination"?

Teaching and training people to resolve confiicts directly
is EMPOWERING not disempowering anyone. It would free up
the judiciary and govt to handle only the matters these are designed to address,
and keep personal matters to the people to work out and make decisions ourselves
so we take ownership and responsibility. This is for empowerment, not the opposite!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"You voted for HHH, Carter, Bubba Clinton and Lurch, you despicable lying rodent" is lying from LiabilitaryIlar. Nothing new.

He is a dirty lying pretender who is not even a Republican, so he won't be attending the convention. I will be there.

No true blue American really pays much attention to his posts, other than kick at them on occasion like this.

Poor Fakey. I got him all pissed off in mid-period. Again.

Anyway, Fakey, you diseased lying rat twat, I am not a Republican. I have already noted that I am not a Republican.

Neither are you you dishonest pin prick. But one of us (i.e., me) openly acknowledges not being a Republican. YOU falsely pose as a Republican.

Thankfully, you are so wholly dishonest and KNOWN to be entirely dishonest that you lack any shred of credibility.

Thus, you fool nobody. Ever.

Now, go take your Midol my little bitch. Face facts. I own you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"You voted for HHH, Carter, Bubba Clinton and Lurch, you despicable lying rodent" is lying from LiabilitaryIlar. Nothing new.

He is a dirty lying pretender who is not even a Republican, so he won't be attending the convention. I will be there.

No true blue American really pays much attention to his posts, other than kick at them on occasion like this.

Poor Fakey. I got him all pissed off in mid-period. Again.

Anyway, Fakey, you diseased lying rat twat, I am not a Republican. I have already noted that I am not a Republican.

Neither are you you dishonest pin prick. But one of us (i.e., me) openly acknowledges not being a Republican. YOU falsely pose as a Republican.

Thankfully, you are so wholly dishonest and KNOWN to be entirely dishonest that you lack any shred of credibility.

Thus, you fool nobody. Ever.

Now, go take your Midol my little bitch. Face facts. I own you.

As you say over your shoulder as I and the rest of the board make you the bitch whenever you show up.

You were bitched out as Liability and now as Ilar. Now rest for your weary butt.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"You voted for HHH, Carter, Bubba Clinton and Lurch, you despicable lying rodent" is lying from LiabilitaryIlar. Nothing new.

He is a dirty lying pretender who is not even a Republican, so he won't be attending the convention. I will be there.

No true blue American really pays much attention to his posts, other than kick at them on occasion like this.

Poor Fakey. I got him all pissed off in mid-period. Again.

Anyway, Fakey, you diseased lying rat twat, I am not a Republican. I have already noted that I am not a Republican.

Neither are you you dishonest pin prick. But one of us (i.e., me) openly acknowledges not being a Republican. YOU falsely pose as a Republican.

Thankfully, you are so wholly dishonest and KNOWN to be entirely dishonest that you lack any shred of credibility.

Thus, you fool nobody. Ever.

Now, go take your Midol my little bitch. Face facts. I own you.

As you say over your shoulder as I and the rest of the board make you the bitch whenever you show up.

You were bitched out as Liability and now as Ilar. Now rest for your weary butt.

You, Fakey, have never had the slightest ability to make anybody your bitch.

You have been and will forever be a board bitch.

Take some more Midol. You are totally owned.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"You voted for HHH, Carter, Bubba Clinton and Lurch, you despicable lying rodent" is lying from LiabilitaryIlar. Nothing new.

He is a dirty lying pretender who is not even a Republican, so he won't be attending the convention. I will be there.

No true blue American really pays much attention to his posts, other than kick at them on occasion like this.

Poor Fakey. I got him all pissed off in mid-period. Again.

Anyway, Fakey, you diseased lying rat twat, I am not a Republican. I have already noted that I am not a Republican.

Neither are you you dishonest pin prick. But one of us (i.e., me) openly acknowledges not being a Republican. YOU falsely pose as a Republican.

Thankfully, you are so wholly dishonest and KNOWN to be entirely dishonest that you lack any shred of credibility.

Thus, you fool nobody. Ever.

Now, go take your Midol my little bitch. Face facts. I own you.

As you say over your shoulder as I and the rest of the board make you the bitch whenever you show up.

You were bitched out as Liability and now as Ilar. Now rest for your weary butt.

You, Fakey, have never had the slightest ability to make anybody your bitch.

You have been and will forever be a board bitch.

Take some more Midol. You are totally owned.

I let my bitch, Ilar, act out at times. It makes him feel feisty and more fun to get his head down.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Take some more Midol. You are totally owned.

I let my bitch, Ilar, act out at times. It makes him feel feisty and more fun to get his head down. [/QUOTE]

Fakey is dishonest in ALL things, but one thing is very clear.

His butthurt is now galactic in size and scope.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Take some more Midol. You are totally owned.

I let my bitch, Ilar, act out at times. It makes him feel feisty and more fun to get his head down.

Fakey is dishonest in ALL things, but one thing is very clear.

His butthurt is now galactic in size and scope.

Talk, my bitch, talk loud.

 

[emilynghiem]

"You voted for HHH, Carter, Bubba Clinton and Lurch, you despicable lying rodent" is lying from LiabilitaryIlar. Nothing new.

He is a dirty lying pretender who is not even a Republican, so he won't be attending the convention. I will be there.

No true blue American really pays much attention to his posts, other than kick at them on occasion like this.

Poor Fakey. I got him all pissed off in mid-period. Again.

Anyway, Fakey, you diseased lying rat twat, I am not a Republican. I have already noted that I am not a Republican.

Neither are you you dishonest pin prick. But one of us (i.e., me) openly acknowledges not being a Republican. YOU falsely pose as a Republican.

Thankfully, you are so wholly dishonest and KNOWN to be entirely dishonest that you lack any shred of credibility.

Thus, you fool nobody. Ever.

Now, go take your Midol my little bitch. Face facts. I own you.

Sorry IlarMeilyr but neither you nor anyone on here "owns" JakeStarkey who
continues to speak, think and post as an individual. I am still trying to find the angle
that speaks to Jake, so I can align and agree with that wavelength.

If you are not on the same page, that shows the views that you both own are separate.

When you speak the same language, you can share ownership over the points you agree on.

Jake and I haven't even found that place where we are perfectly in tune and sync with each other.
We are still missing notes, and out of key/tune here and there.

So if he and I are off, certainly you who is not even trying to find agreement with Jake
cannot claim ownership, thinking you have this.

If you were so right, Jake would agree and correct things to align with you.
I don't see that happening yet.

We don't own each other. The process guides us until we reach agreement
on the key principles that should remain public policy, and agree on the private areas and how
to set that up where they aren't in conflict with the interests of others protected equally.

Then we will all be on the same page. It's not a matter of owning others, but correcting ourselves where we can align without compromising points or principles that are key to the solution.

Jake represents views outside my own I cannot fully identify with myself,
but I must include in order for Constitutional laws to be equally inclusive.

Wherever that is coming from, I am sure I will never own it.
We all belong to God, so if God respects our free will, surely we should not be in the
business of trying to own or dictate to each other, but just try to correct and align mutually
so that God's will puts all of ours in perspective and harmonic balance.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"You voted for HHH, Carter, Bubba Clinton and Lurch, you despicable lying rodent" is lying from LiabilitaryIlar. Nothing new.

He is a dirty lying pretender who is not even a Republican, so he won't be attending the convention. I will be there.

No true blue American really pays much attention to his posts, other than kick at them on occasion like this.

Poor Fakey. I got him all pissed off in mid-period. Again.

Anyway, Fakey, you diseased lying rat twat, I am not a Republican. I have already noted that I am not a Republican.

Neither are you you dishonest pin prick. But one of us (i.e., me) openly acknowledges not being a Republican. YOU falsely pose as a Republican.

Thankfully, you are so wholly dishonest and KNOWN to be entirely dishonest that you lack any shred of credibility.

Thus, you fool nobody. Ever.

Now, go take your Midol my little bitch. Face facts. I own you.

Sorry IlarMeilyr but neither you nor anyone on here "owns" JakeStarkey who
continues to speak, think and post as an individual. I am still trying to find the angle
that speaks to Jake, so I can align and agree with that wavelength.

If you are not on the same page, that shows the views that you both own are separate.

When you speak the same language, you can share ownership over the points you agree on.

Jake and I haven't even found that place where we are perfectly in tune and sync with each other.
We are still missing notes, and out of key/tune here and there.

So if he and I are off, certainly you who is not even trying to find agreement with Jake
cannot claim ownership, thinking you have this.

If you were so right, Jake would agree and correct things to align with you.
I don't see that happening yet.

We don't own each other. The process guides us until we reach agreement
on the key principles that should remain public policy, and agree on the private areas and how
to set that up where they aren't in conflict with the interests of others protected equally.

Then we will all be on the same page. It's not a matter of owning others, but correcting ourselves where we can align without compromising points or principles that are key to the solution.

Jake represents views outside my own I cannot fully identify with myself,
but I must include in order for Constitutional laws to be equally inclusive.

Wherever that is coming from, I am sure I will never own it.
We all belong to God, so if God respects our free will, surely we should not be in the
business of trying to own or dictate to each other, but just try to correct and align mutually
so that God's will puts all of ours in perspective and harmonic balance.

He is totally owned. He my bitch and shit.

Seriously, he knows what to say because he is a far left wing goober and just spews what those brain-dead Soros inspired Daily Kos guzzling numbnutz TELL him to think.

I feel guilty owning him. You know, what with slavery being properly outlawed and all. But it is all his own fault.

He may not like being my bitch. But that is irrelevant. He my bitch all the same. I have owned him since jump.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Take some more Midol. You are totally owned.

I let my bitch, Ilar, act out at times. It makes him feel feisty and more fun to get his head down.

Fakey is dishonest in ALL things, but one thing is very clear.

His butthurt is now galactic in size and scope.

Talk, my bitch, talk loud.

What Fakey lacks in any hint (or hope) of ever having the slightest hint of originality, he makes up for with plodding repetition of the things his betters say.



Fakey hates to admit it, but he is utterly owned.