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

[Skylar]

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Laughing......you mistake me for yourself. You've got nothing. I've got 2 centuries of jurisprudence that back my claims. The Federalist Papers that say otherwise. History says that says otherwise. The Founders that say otherwise.

You .....have yourself. And you're nobody.

Worse, even you don't believe your own argument. As there's no explicit power delegated to the Executive to arrest anyone. Or incarcerate anyone. Or enforce any law. Yet you acknowledge that ALL of these powers are part of the Executive Power. Simply obliterating your 'unless you can show me the words in the constitution' argument.

As even you don't buy your own bullshit. And of course, I have no use for you.

I'm someone that if I say the authority exists can show you the words that specifically say it. You can't. That puts me many levels above your pitiful existence.

I bet you're the kind that thinks general welfare means social welfare.

Why would the word, "general," exclude, "social?"

Why would it include it? They don't mean the same thing. People like you and Skylar use the writings of the founders to support you claims about what he Constitution means then go outside that when you want something to say it a certain way. Nothing in the writings of the founders indicate general meant social welfare handouts.

Given that you ignore the writings of the founders, what relevance would their writings have to your argument?

You can't quote the founders AND ignore them. Its one or the other. Pick one.

 

[frigidweirdo]

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

Where does it specifically say that the Executive can arrest anyone? Or incarcerate anyone? Or enforce any law?

Yet you ignore your own 'it has to be in the constitution' standard and recognize all of these powers as being part of the executive power, despite never being explicitly articulated. Meaning even YOU don't believe your own bullshit. As you ignored your own standard with the Executive.

Watch, I'll make you do it again. Where does it say that congress can delegate its authority to say, mint coins? No where. Thus, per your 'if its no in the constitution' argument, congress can't delegate those powers. With the members of congress THEMSELVES being the only people who are allowed under your interpretation of the constitution, to work the coin presses and mint coins.

If not, why not.

You assume I agree that the executive should be able to arrest people?

We've gone over what the term faithfully execute means. It means to enforce or carry out retard.

Congress having the authority to coin money doesn't mean they have to work the presses themselves. That's a stupid argument from the dumbest piece of shit on the planet, you. You really are that stupid. That's what happens when people drink during pregnancy. It's lessens the cognitive ability of the turds they shit out.

The ability to coin money is the ability to LEGALLY make the money as money. The people who physically do this are employees of those who have the power. The police are the employees of the Executive.

If I do something at work, I do it in the name of the company I work for (for my sins), it's done in their name. When American soldiers went to Iraq to kill, they killed in the name of the govt, the executive sent them and the blood is on their hands.

 

[Conservative65]

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

Where does it specifically say that the Executive can arrest anyone? Or incarcerate anyone? Or enforce any law?

Yet you ignore your own 'it has to be in the constitution' standard and recognize all of these powers as being part of the executive power, despite never being explicitly articulated. Meaning even YOU don't believe your own bullshit. As you ignored your own standard with the Executive.

Watch, I'll make you do it again. Where does it say that congress can delegate its authority to say, mint coins? No where. Thus, per your 'if its no in the constitution' argument, congress can't delegate those powers. With the members of congress THEMSELVES being the only people who are allowed under your interpretation of the constitution, to work the coin presses and mint coins.

If not, why not.

You assume I agree that the executive should be able to arrest people?

Show me where in the Constitution that power is explicitly articulated. I just checked. THe word 'arrest' isn't mentioned anywhere. Neither is 'incarcerate'. Nor 'enforce'.

But of course, you ignore your own standard. As you don't actually believe it. Which convenient....as I don't buy your standard either. No one does. Not the founders, the Federal Papers, the courts, history, anyone.

Its just you, citing you. And you're nobody.

Congress having the authority to coin money doesn't mean they have to work the presses themselves. . That's a stupid argument from the dumbest piece of shit on the planet, you. You really are that stupid. That's what happens when people drink during pregnancy. It's lessens the cognitive ability of the turds they shit out.

Oh, hyper literalistic interpretations of the constitution are quite stupid. But this is your standard. You're stuck with it.

Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to delegate its authority to mint coins?

Quote the passage.

If you can't quote such a passage, then by the brain dead standards of hyper-literalism, ONLY the members of Congress has the authority to mint coins. There's no one else than can do this.

Or.....you can wipe your ass with your standards yet again. I'll only point and laugh again a little. I promise.

The Constitution doesn't say food stamps, healthcare, Medicaid, etc. but I suspect you support those things.

 

[frigidweirdo]

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

What is Judicial Power? What is Legislative Power? The answer to this is found in history. Specific to the US Constitution, where the power is different to other countries.

The Constitution is vague. It doesn't specify what freedom of speech is. All Rights have limits. How do we know this? From the Constitution? No.

The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA "shall not be infringed" YET prisoners aren't allowed guns. We can't see this from the vague statement in the US Constitution. We have to look at history to see WHY this is the case.

The Constitution is a document which requires a lot more evidence than the constitution itself. The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is essential in understanding, for example. All lawyers must learn about this for a reason.

Still can't point to the words? Your answer supports me. You claim it's vague yet support someone who says it's absolutely clear. Which one is it?

Like I said, some people just don't get it. That's fine. You're allowed to be ignorant of the truth.

 

[Conservative65]

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

Where does it specifically say that the Executive can arrest anyone? Or incarcerate anyone? Or enforce any law?

Yet you ignore your own 'it has to be in the constitution' standard and recognize all of these powers as being part of the executive power, despite never being explicitly articulated. Meaning even YOU don't believe your own bullshit. As you ignored your own standard with the Executive.

Watch, I'll make you do it again. Where does it say that congress can delegate its authority to say, mint coins? No where. Thus, per your 'if its no in the constitution' argument, congress can't delegate those powers. With the members of congress THEMSELVES being the only people who are allowed under your interpretation of the constitution, to work the coin presses and mint coins.

If not, why not.

You assume I agree that the executive should be able to arrest people?

We've gone over what the term faithfully execute means. It means to enforce or carry out retard.

Congress having the authority to coin money doesn't mean they have to work the presses themselves. That's a stupid argument from the dumbest piece of shit on the planet, you. You really are that stupid. That's what happens when people drink during pregnancy. It's lessens the cognitive ability of the turds they shit out.

The ability to coin money is the ability to LEGALLY make the money as money. The people who physically do this are employees of those who have the power. The police are the employees of the Executive.

If I do something at work, I do it in the name of the company I work for (for my sins), it's done in their name. When American soldiers went to Iraq to kill, they killed in the name of the govt, the executive sent them and the blood is on their hands.

There is more blood on the hands of Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan than Bush. Look at the numbers.

 

[Conservative65]

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

What is Judicial Power? What is Legislative Power? The answer to this is found in history. Specific to the US Constitution, where the power is different to other countries.

The Constitution is vague. It doesn't specify what freedom of speech is. All Rights have limits. How do we know this? From the Constitution? No.

The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA "shall not be infringed" YET prisoners aren't allowed guns. We can't see this from the vague statement in the US Constitution. We have to look at history to see WHY this is the case.

The Constitution is a document which requires a lot more evidence than the constitution itself. The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is essential in understanding, for example. All lawyers must learn about this for a reason.

Still can't point to the words? Your answer supports me. You claim it's vague yet support someone who says it's absolutely clear. Which one is it?

Like I said, some people just don't get it. That's fine. You're allowed to be ignorant of the truth.

Ignorant according to you? That's a laugh. You couldn't find a hooker in a whorehouse and want to tell me about the truth. Fuck off loser.

 

[Skylar]

With that 'someone' being Alexander Hamilton, write of the Federalist Paper 78.....with the Federalists being the dominant force in writing the Constitution.

With your source....being yourself, insisting you know better than the founders what the Constitution is supposed to mean.

Our sources are not equal.

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

What is Judicial Power? What is Legislative Power? The answer to this is found in history. Specific to the US Constitution, where the power is different to other countries.

The Constitution is vague. It doesn't specify what freedom of speech is. All Rights have limits. How do we know this? From the Constitution? No.

The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA "shall not be infringed" YET prisoners aren't allowed guns. We can't see this from the vague statement in the US Constitution. We have to look at history to see WHY this is the case.

The Constitution is a document which requires a lot more evidence than the constitution itself. The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is essential in understanding, for example. All lawyers must learn about this for a reason.

Still can't point to the words? Your answer supports me. You claim it's vague yet support someone who says it's absolutely clear. Which one is it?

Laughing.......even you don't use the standards of hyperliteralism you're insisting be applied to the Judicial Power. Very much like your reference to the founders as you IGNORE the founders, you ignore your own standard the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Where is 'arrest' in the constitution? Or 'incarcerate'? Or 'enforce'? Where is the authority for congress to delegate its authority to mint coins?

No where. But in yet another fit of hapless hypocrisy you acknowledge powers that *aren't* explcitily cited in the constitution. All while denouncing powers that aren't explictily cited in the constitution.

And ignoring the Federalists Papers, of course. Laughably insisting that you know better than the founders on what the Judicial Power entails. You don't.

 

[Conservative65]

Until you can show me the words in the Constitution, you have nothing.

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

What is Judicial Power? What is Legislative Power? The answer to this is found in history. Specific to the US Constitution, where the power is different to other countries.

The Constitution is vague. It doesn't specify what freedom of speech is. All Rights have limits. How do we know this? From the Constitution? No.

The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA "shall not be infringed" YET prisoners aren't allowed guns. We can't see this from the vague statement in the US Constitution. We have to look at history to see WHY this is the case.

The Constitution is a document which requires a lot more evidence than the constitution itself. The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is essential in understanding, for example. All lawyers must learn about this for a reason.

Still can't point to the words? Your answer supports me. You claim it's vague yet support someone who says it's absolutely clear. Which one is it?

Laughing.......even you don't use the standards of hyperliteralism you're insisting be applied to the Judicial Power. Very much like your reference to the founders as you IGNORE the founders, you ignore your own standard the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Where is 'arrest' in the constitution? Or 'incarcerate'? Or 'enforce'? Where is the authority for congress to delegate its authority to mint coins?

No where. But in yet another fit of hapless hypocrisy you acknowledge powers that *aren't* explcitily cited in the constitution. All while denouncing powers that aren't explictily cited in the constitution.

And ignoring the Federalists Papers, of course. Laughably insisting that you know better than the founders on what the Judicial Power entails. You don't.

Yet you support things which you can explicitly cite in the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

What is Judicial Power? What is Legislative Power? The answer to this is found in history. Specific to the US Constitution, where the power is different to other countries.

The Constitution is vague. It doesn't specify what freedom of speech is. All Rights have limits. How do we know this? From the Constitution? No.

The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA "shall not be infringed" YET prisoners aren't allowed guns. We can't see this from the vague statement in the US Constitution. We have to look at history to see WHY this is the case.

The Constitution is a document which requires a lot more evidence than the constitution itself. The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is essential in understanding, for example. All lawyers must learn about this for a reason.

Still can't point to the words? Your answer supports me. You claim it's vague yet support someone who says it's absolutely clear. Which one is it?

Like I said, some people just don't get it. That's fine. You're allowed to be ignorant of the truth.

Ignorant according to you? That's a laugh. You couldn't find a hooker in a whorehouse and want to tell me about the truth. Fuck off loser.

Ignorant according to you. As you're willfully ignoring the Federalist Papers, insisting you know better what the Judicial Power entails.

You don't. Your willful ignorance doesn't make the Federalist Papers and its explicit contradiction of your argument disappear. It merely means that you're ignorant by your own standards.

 

[Conservative65]

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

What is Judicial Power? What is Legislative Power? The answer to this is found in history. Specific to the US Constitution, where the power is different to other countries.

The Constitution is vague. It doesn't specify what freedom of speech is. All Rights have limits. How do we know this? From the Constitution? No.

The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA "shall not be infringed" YET prisoners aren't allowed guns. We can't see this from the vague statement in the US Constitution. We have to look at history to see WHY this is the case.

The Constitution is a document which requires a lot more evidence than the constitution itself. The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is essential in understanding, for example. All lawyers must learn about this for a reason.

Still can't point to the words? Your answer supports me. You claim it's vague yet support someone who says it's absolutely clear. Which one is it?

Like I said, some people just don't get it. That's fine. You're allowed to be ignorant of the truth.

Ignorant according to you? That's a laugh. You couldn't find a hooker in a whorehouse and want to tell me about the truth. Fuck off loser.

Ignorant according to you. As you're willfully ignoring the Federalist Papers, insisting you know better what the Judicial Power entails.

You don't. Your willful ignorance doesn't make the Federalist Papers and its explicit contradiction of your argument disappear. It merely means that you're ignorant by your own standards.

I'm using the actual CONSTITUTION. That's something you ignore.

 

[Skylar]

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

What is Judicial Power? What is Legislative Power? The answer to this is found in history. Specific to the US Constitution, where the power is different to other countries.

The Constitution is vague. It doesn't specify what freedom of speech is. All Rights have limits. How do we know this? From the Constitution? No.

The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA "shall not be infringed" YET prisoners aren't allowed guns. We can't see this from the vague statement in the US Constitution. We have to look at history to see WHY this is the case.

The Constitution is a document which requires a lot more evidence than the constitution itself. The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is essential in understanding, for example. All lawyers must learn about this for a reason.

Still can't point to the words? Your answer supports me. You claim it's vague yet support someone who says it's absolutely clear. Which one is it?

Laughing.......even you don't use the standards of hyperliteralism you're insisting be applied to the Judicial Power. Very much like your reference to the founders as you IGNORE the founders, you ignore your own standard the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Where is 'arrest' in the constitution? Or 'incarcerate'? Or 'enforce'? Where is the authority for congress to delegate its authority to mint coins?

No where. But in yet another fit of hapless hypocrisy you acknowledge powers that *aren't* explcitily cited in the constitution. All while denouncing powers that aren't explictily cited in the constitution.

And ignoring the Federalists Papers, of course. Laughably insisting that you know better than the founders on what the Judicial Power entails. You don't.

Yet you support things which you can explicitly cite in the Constitution.

The constitution doesn't define all of its terms. If you believe it does, show us the definition of 'natural born'. Or 'unreasonable'. Or 'cruel and unusual'. The Judicial Power like the Executive Power, isn't defined in the constitution.

The Judicial Power is defined by the founders in the Federalist Papers. And they clearly recognized the authority to intepret the constitution and the obligation to put the Constitution above a statute that conflicts with it. So you ignore the founders, ignore the constitution, ignore 2 centuries of jurisprudence, even ignore common sense.....and make up your own hyperliteral interpretation, citing yourself.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

 

[Conservative65]

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

What is Judicial Power? What is Legislative Power? The answer to this is found in history. Specific to the US Constitution, where the power is different to other countries.

The Constitution is vague. It doesn't specify what freedom of speech is. All Rights have limits. How do we know this? From the Constitution? No.

The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA "shall not be infringed" YET prisoners aren't allowed guns. We can't see this from the vague statement in the US Constitution. We have to look at history to see WHY this is the case.

The Constitution is a document which requires a lot more evidence than the constitution itself. The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is essential in understanding, for example. All lawyers must learn about this for a reason.

Still can't point to the words? Your answer supports me. You claim it's vague yet support someone who says it's absolutely clear. Which one is it?

Laughing.......even you don't use the standards of hyperliteralism you're insisting be applied to the Judicial Power. Very much like your reference to the founders as you IGNORE the founders, you ignore your own standard the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Where is 'arrest' in the constitution? Or 'incarcerate'? Or 'enforce'? Where is the authority for congress to delegate its authority to mint coins?

No where. But in yet another fit of hapless hypocrisy you acknowledge powers that *aren't* explcitily cited in the constitution. All while denouncing powers that aren't explictily cited in the constitution.

And ignoring the Federalists Papers, of course. Laughably insisting that you know better than the founders on what the Judicial Power entails. You don't.

Yet you support things which you can explicitly cite in the Constitution.

The constitution doesn't define all of its terms. If you believe it does, show us the definition of 'natural born'. Or 'unreasonable'. Or 'cruel and unusual'. The Judicial Power like the Executive Power, isn't defined in the constitution.

The Judicial Power is defined by the founders in the Federalist Papers. And they clearly recognized the authority to intepret the constitution and the obligation to put the Constitution above a statute that conflicts with it. So you ignore the founders, ignore the constitution, ignore 2 centuries of jurisprudence, even ignore common sense.....and make up your own hyperliteral interpretation, citing yourself.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

The Constitution states judicial powers and it doesn't state what you want it to say. Therefore, you reach.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Seriously? Is this all you've got? You're picking and choosing what sources people can use, because the only argument you've got is "it's not in the Constitution" when it is, it's there, judicial power.

Where does it specifically say what Skylar claims it says? I have free speech and can show you the words that say I do. Show me where it says the same things about judges.

Where does it specifically say that the Executive can arrest anyone? Or incarcerate anyone? Or enforce any law?

Yet you ignore your own 'it has to be in the constitution' standard and recognize all of these powers as being part of the executive power, despite never being explicitly articulated. Meaning even YOU don't believe your own bullshit. As you ignored your own standard with the Executive.

Watch, I'll make you do it again. Where does it say that congress can delegate its authority to say, mint coins? No where. Thus, per your 'if its no in the constitution' argument, congress can't delegate those powers. With the members of congress THEMSELVES being the only people who are allowed under your interpretation of the constitution, to work the coin presses and mint coins.

If not, why not.

You assume I agree that the executive should be able to arrest people?

We've gone over what the term faithfully execute means. It means to enforce or carry out retard.

Congress having the authority to coin money doesn't mean they have to work the presses themselves. That's a stupid argument from the dumbest piece of shit on the planet, you. You really are that stupid. That's what happens when people drink during pregnancy. It's lessens the cognitive ability of the turds they shit out.

The ability to coin money is the ability to LEGALLY make the money as money. The people who physically do this are employees of those who have the power. The police are the employees of the Executive.

If I do something at work, I do it in the name of the company I work for (for my sins), it's done in their name. When American soldiers went to Iraq to kill, they killed in the name of the govt, the executive sent them and the blood is on their hands.

There is more blood on the hands of Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan than Bush. Look at the numbers.

I did, Bush wins hands down. However the point you should be making is that US foreign policy is bloody, and has been for every president since, well before WW2.

 

[Skylar]

What is Judicial Power? What is Legislative Power? The answer to this is found in history. Specific to the US Constitution, where the power is different to other countries.

The Constitution is vague. It doesn't specify what freedom of speech is. All Rights have limits. How do we know this? From the Constitution? No.

The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA "shall not be infringed" YET prisoners aren't allowed guns. We can't see this from the vague statement in the US Constitution. We have to look at history to see WHY this is the case.

The Constitution is a document which requires a lot more evidence than the constitution itself. The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is essential in understanding, for example. All lawyers must learn about this for a reason.

Still can't point to the words? Your answer supports me. You claim it's vague yet support someone who says it's absolutely clear. Which one is it?

Like I said, some people just don't get it. That's fine. You're allowed to be ignorant of the truth.

Ignorant according to you? That's a laugh. You couldn't find a hooker in a whorehouse and want to tell me about the truth. Fuck off loser.

Ignorant according to you. As you're willfully ignoring the Federalist Papers, insisting you know better what the Judicial Power entails.

You don't. Your willful ignorance doesn't make the Federalist Papers and its explicit contradiction of your argument disappear. It merely means that you're ignorant by your own standards.

I'm using the actual CONSTITUTION. That's something you ignore.

Then show us where the words 'arrest', 'incarcerate', and 'enforce' are located in the constitution. Show us where congress is granted the authority to delegate its power to mint coins.

You can't. Yet you acknowledge all of these powers, despite none of them being explicitly articulated. Wiping your ass with your own standards.

Even you don't buy your bullshit hyperliteralism. Why then would I?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What is Judicial Power? What is Legislative Power? The answer to this is found in history. Specific to the US Constitution, where the power is different to other countries.

The Constitution is vague. It doesn't specify what freedom of speech is. All Rights have limits. How do we know this? From the Constitution? No.

The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA "shall not be infringed" YET prisoners aren't allowed guns. We can't see this from the vague statement in the US Constitution. We have to look at history to see WHY this is the case.

The Constitution is a document which requires a lot more evidence than the constitution itself. The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is essential in understanding, for example. All lawyers must learn about this for a reason.

Still can't point to the words? Your answer supports me. You claim it's vague yet support someone who says it's absolutely clear. Which one is it?

Laughing.......even you don't use the standards of hyperliteralism you're insisting be applied to the Judicial Power. Very much like your reference to the founders as you IGNORE the founders, you ignore your own standard the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Where is 'arrest' in the constitution? Or 'incarcerate'? Or 'enforce'? Where is the authority for congress to delegate its authority to mint coins?

No where. But in yet another fit of hapless hypocrisy you acknowledge powers that *aren't* explcitily cited in the constitution. All while denouncing powers that aren't explictily cited in the constitution.

And ignoring the Federalists Papers, of course. Laughably insisting that you know better than the founders on what the Judicial Power entails. You don't.

Yet you support things which you can explicitly cite in the Constitution.

The constitution doesn't define all of its terms. If you believe it does, show us the definition of 'natural born'. Or 'unreasonable'. Or 'cruel and unusual'. The Judicial Power like the Executive Power, isn't defined in the constitution.

The Judicial Power is defined by the founders in the Federalist Papers. And they clearly recognized the authority to intepret the constitution and the obligation to put the Constitution above a statute that conflicts with it. So you ignore the founders, ignore the constitution, ignore 2 centuries of jurisprudence, even ignore common sense.....and make up your own hyperliteral interpretation, citing yourself.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

The Constitution states judicial powers and it doesn't state what you want it to say. Therefore, you reach.

What is Judicial Power. You tell me. What does the Constitution say Judicial Power is? Seeing as you're the expert on what the Constitution says.

 

[Skylar]

What is Judicial Power? What is Legislative Power? The answer to this is found in history. Specific to the US Constitution, where the power is different to other countries.

The Constitution is vague. It doesn't specify what freedom of speech is. All Rights have limits. How do we know this? From the Constitution? No.

The 2nd Amendment says the RKBA "shall not be infringed" YET prisoners aren't allowed guns. We can't see this from the vague statement in the US Constitution. We have to look at history to see WHY this is the case.

The Constitution is a document which requires a lot more evidence than the constitution itself. The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is essential in understanding, for example. All lawyers must learn about this for a reason.

Still can't point to the words? Your answer supports me. You claim it's vague yet support someone who says it's absolutely clear. Which one is it?

Laughing.......even you don't use the standards of hyperliteralism you're insisting be applied to the Judicial Power. Very much like your reference to the founders as you IGNORE the founders, you ignore your own standard the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Where is 'arrest' in the constitution? Or 'incarcerate'? Or 'enforce'? Where is the authority for congress to delegate its authority to mint coins?

No where. But in yet another fit of hapless hypocrisy you acknowledge powers that *aren't* explcitily cited in the constitution. All while denouncing powers that aren't explictily cited in the constitution.

And ignoring the Federalists Papers, of course. Laughably insisting that you know better than the founders on what the Judicial Power entails. You don't.

Yet you support things which you can explicitly cite in the Constitution.

The constitution doesn't define all of its terms. If you believe it does, show us the definition of 'natural born'. Or 'unreasonable'. Or 'cruel and unusual'. The Judicial Power like the Executive Power, isn't defined in the constitution.

The Judicial Power is defined by the founders in the Federalist Papers. And they clearly recognized the authority to intepret the constitution and the obligation to put the Constitution above a statute that conflicts with it. So you ignore the founders, ignore the constitution, ignore 2 centuries of jurisprudence, even ignore common sense.....and make up your own hyperliteral interpretation, citing yourself.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

The Constitution states judicial powers and it doesn't state what you want it to say. Therefore, you reach.

The constitution states that congress has the power to mint money. It doesn't say that it has the power to delegate that authority to anyone.

Therefore, you reach.

Hyperliteralism is stupid shit, isn't it?

 

[Conservative65]

Still can't point to the words? Your answer supports me. You claim it's vague yet support someone who says it's absolutely clear. Which one is it?

Laughing.......even you don't use the standards of hyperliteralism you're insisting be applied to the Judicial Power. Very much like your reference to the founders as you IGNORE the founders, you ignore your own standard the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Where is 'arrest' in the constitution? Or 'incarcerate'? Or 'enforce'? Where is the authority for congress to delegate its authority to mint coins?

No where. But in yet another fit of hapless hypocrisy you acknowledge powers that *aren't* explcitily cited in the constitution. All while denouncing powers that aren't explictily cited in the constitution.

And ignoring the Federalists Papers, of course. Laughably insisting that you know better than the founders on what the Judicial Power entails. You don't.

Yet you support things which you can explicitly cite in the Constitution.

The constitution doesn't define all of its terms. If you believe it does, show us the definition of 'natural born'. Or 'unreasonable'. Or 'cruel and unusual'. The Judicial Power like the Executive Power, isn't defined in the constitution.

The Judicial Power is defined by the founders in the Federalist Papers. And they clearly recognized the authority to intepret the constitution and the obligation to put the Constitution above a statute that conflicts with it. So you ignore the founders, ignore the constitution, ignore 2 centuries of jurisprudence, even ignore common sense.....and make up your own hyperliteral interpretation, citing yourself.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

The Constitution states judicial powers and it doesn't state what you want it to say. Therefore, you reach.

What is Judicial Power. You tell me. What does the Constitution say Judicial Power is? Seeing as you're the expert on what the Constitution says.

Too stupid to read it for yourself? Try Article III.

 

[Conservative65]

Still can't point to the words? Your answer supports me. You claim it's vague yet support someone who says it's absolutely clear. Which one is it?

Laughing.......even you don't use the standards of hyperliteralism you're insisting be applied to the Judicial Power. Very much like your reference to the founders as you IGNORE the founders, you ignore your own standard the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Where is 'arrest' in the constitution? Or 'incarcerate'? Or 'enforce'? Where is the authority for congress to delegate its authority to mint coins?

No where. But in yet another fit of hapless hypocrisy you acknowledge powers that *aren't* explcitily cited in the constitution. All while denouncing powers that aren't explictily cited in the constitution.

And ignoring the Federalists Papers, of course. Laughably insisting that you know better than the founders on what the Judicial Power entails. You don't.

Yet you support things which you can explicitly cite in the Constitution.

The constitution doesn't define all of its terms. If you believe it does, show us the definition of 'natural born'. Or 'unreasonable'. Or 'cruel and unusual'. The Judicial Power like the Executive Power, isn't defined in the constitution.

The Judicial Power is defined by the founders in the Federalist Papers. And they clearly recognized the authority to intepret the constitution and the obligation to put the Constitution above a statute that conflicts with it. So you ignore the founders, ignore the constitution, ignore 2 centuries of jurisprudence, even ignore common sense.....and make up your own hyperliteral interpretation, citing yourself.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

The Constitution states judicial powers and it doesn't state what you want it to say. Therefore, you reach.

The constitution states that congress has the power to mint money. It doesn't say that it has the power to delegate that authority to anyone.

Therefore, you reach.

Hyperliteralism is stupid shit, isn't it?

You get ridiculous when made to look like the fool you are.

The Constitution doesn't say food stamps, healthcare, abortion, WIC, Medicaid, etc. but I suspect you think it means that yet couldn't find one founder that supported it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Laughing.......even you don't use the standards of hyperliteralism you're insisting be applied to the Judicial Power. Very much like your reference to the founders as you IGNORE the founders, you ignore your own standard the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Where is 'arrest' in the constitution? Or 'incarcerate'? Or 'enforce'? Where is the authority for congress to delegate its authority to mint coins?

No where. But in yet another fit of hapless hypocrisy you acknowledge powers that *aren't* explcitily cited in the constitution. All while denouncing powers that aren't explictily cited in the constitution.

And ignoring the Federalists Papers, of course. Laughably insisting that you know better than the founders on what the Judicial Power entails. You don't.

Yet you support things which you can explicitly cite in the Constitution.

The constitution doesn't define all of its terms. If you believe it does, show us the definition of 'natural born'. Or 'unreasonable'. Or 'cruel and unusual'. The Judicial Power like the Executive Power, isn't defined in the constitution.

The Judicial Power is defined by the founders in the Federalist Papers. And they clearly recognized the authority to intepret the constitution and the obligation to put the Constitution above a statute that conflicts with it. So you ignore the founders, ignore the constitution, ignore 2 centuries of jurisprudence, even ignore common sense.....and make up your own hyperliteral interpretation, citing yourself.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

The Constitution states judicial powers and it doesn't state what you want it to say. Therefore, you reach.

What is Judicial Power. You tell me. What does the Constitution say Judicial Power is? Seeing as you're the expert on what the Constitution says.

Too stupid to read it for yourself? Try Article III.

Oh, now we're onto insults, hey? You're making an argument, but you won't present your evidence, then you insult to compensate. Well, this discussion sounds about finished. Bye

 

[Conservative65]

Yet you support things which you can explicitly cite in the Constitution.

The constitution doesn't define all of its terms. If you believe it does, show us the definition of 'natural born'. Or 'unreasonable'. Or 'cruel and unusual'. The Judicial Power like the Executive Power, isn't defined in the constitution.

The Judicial Power is defined by the founders in the Federalist Papers. And they clearly recognized the authority to intepret the constitution and the obligation to put the Constitution above a statute that conflicts with it. So you ignore the founders, ignore the constitution, ignore 2 centuries of jurisprudence, even ignore common sense.....and make up your own hyperliteral interpretation, citing yourself.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

The Constitution states judicial powers and it doesn't state what you want it to say. Therefore, you reach.

What is Judicial Power. You tell me. What does the Constitution say Judicial Power is? Seeing as you're the expert on what the Constitution says.

Too stupid to read it for yourself? Try Article III.

Oh, now we're onto insults, hey? You're making an argument, but you won't present your evidence, then you insult to compensate. Well, this discussion sounds about finished. Bye

It was a question but thanks for the answer.

I've presented it and asked for the specific words which you can't provide. That's all the evidence I need.