Why do the God-haters persist?

[holston]

I'm pretty sure that this kind of bigotry is against the forum rules. Please stop.

There's nothing bigoted about speaking the truth.
The Jews have been behind the changes in immigration law and policy. They did the same thing in Europe. It's all part of the "diversification" "multiculturalism" program they promote.
They promote it because a fragmented society allows the Jewish Socio-Political Union (JSPU) more leverage.

 

[orogenicman]

I'm pretty sure that this kind of bigotry is against the forum rules. Please stop.

There's nothing bigoted about speaking the truth.
The Jews have been behind the changes in immigration law and policy. They did the same thing in Europe. It's all part of the "diversification" "multiculturalism" program they promote.
They promote it because a fragmented society allows the Jewish Socio-Political Union (JSPU) more leverage.

Moderators, I believe this conversation belongs in the rubber room. Please move it. TIA.

 

[BreezeWood]

It's only concern is that it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion. You are free to practice your religion outside of the government domain. You are not free to use government to further a religious cause, belief, or sect because that would violate the establishment clause. You are not free to use government to impede the free exercise of religious practices by others because that would violate the religious freedom clause.

I take it you are not the least bit concerned with the House Resolution declaring Judaism's "Noahide Laws" the foundation of law?

Bill Text - 102nd Congress (1991-1992) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


H.J.RES.104 -- To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)

--H.J.Res.104--

H.J.Res.104

One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,

one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one

Joint Resolution

To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe', this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

holston: I take it you are not the least bit concerned with the House Resolution declaring Judaism's "Noahide Laws" the foundation of law?

is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'


holston, is the above the resolution you are referring to ... I sympathise with your concern but isn't the law simply granting recognition by setting aside a day for deliberation - where does it declare - "Noahide Laws" the foundation of law - as anyother than an opinion.

.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm pretty sure that this kind of bigotry is against the forum rules. Please stop.

There's nothing bigoted about speaking the truth.
The Jews have been behind the changes in immigration law and policy. They did the same thing in Europe. It's all part of the "diversification" "multiculturalism" program they promote.
They promote it because a fragmented society allows the Jewish Socio-Political Union (JSPU) more leverage.

Moderators, I believe this conversation belongs in the rubber room. Please move it. TIA.

Why, because you think his views are hateful?

Pretty much every anti-Christian thread in the religion forum should be in the rubber room. Take your whine there.

 

[holston]

Moderators, I believe this conversation belongs in the rubber room. Please move it. TIA.

Prove me wrong on the immigration issue or anything else if you can.

You can deny it all you want but that is not the same thing as offering evidence to the contrary.
If you don't read what I've said then you can't pass judgement on it.



Founding Fathers Quotes - Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers

George Washington
1st U.S. President

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

Zionists are neither loyal to the Constitutional Republic of the US anymore than they are friends of Christiandom. They ARE however loyal to Zionism and patriotic to Israel. There are many in this country who would call themselves Patriots who are traitors to it.


It's easy enough for anyone to call themselves anything, including "Christian". That doesn't mean they are.
If they manage to fool others into accepting the label they've attached to themselves or anything else without regard to whether it's substance or contents match the label, then it's the fault of those who are foolish enough to accept them without testing to see whether they match.

This is what is meant by "wolves in sheep's clothing" as if you didn't know.

These people have always been around since Christ established the Church upon his resurrection and ascension into heaven. There will always be charlatans and hypocrites as well. Those who deny this ignore the fact that the whole purpose of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection was to save sinners. Charlatans and hypocrites are only descriptions of certain types of sinners.

The existence of sinners is not evidence that Christianity should be abandoned or abolished, Rather, they are evidence of the need for it.

You wish to censor the teaching of Christ as Lord just as you would censor whatever i have to say which doesn't agree with your Marxist atheist, Jewish Supremacist agenda.


You see the problems with the world and the evil that men do and wish to blame them on the doctrines of Christ. You think that eradicating the mention of Christ in public will in some mysterious way result in a better world.
Why should you think that unless that you see gospel of Christ as a road block to an atheistic Marxist state or as standing in the way of the "Mashianic Age"?

You pretend that no one but those who disbelieve in God are capable of being rational. Yet you seem to think that the ills of man began with Christ and can only disappear when his name has been "obliterated".

You haven't said a word about the "Noahide" House Resolution, much less objected to it. Therefore I take it you have no objection to THAT aspect of religion being injected into the government.
This can only mean that it isn't the "separation of church and state" that you are after, but rather the removal of all references within it that might denote Christianity.

You are unwilling to admit that "Noahide" law has NOTHING to do with Christianity, and that it is nothing more than an attempt by Chabbad Lubavitch to inject their venomous doctrines into the government institution which was NOT formulated by Jews.

John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."

Now go ahead and pretend, or lie if you will, that the founders had no inclination towards Christianity and I will continue to post quotes which expose the truth of the matter whether you like it or not.

Otherwise you will have to call the forum censors to do the job that you cannot do by force of reason.

And in doing so you will demonstrate just exactly what the cadre of atheist Marxist Zionists have in store for "freedom of speech" once they gain a sufficient foothold.

"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

"Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

 

[orogenicman]

Wow, the willful ignorance displayed in that rant is simply breathtaking. I rest my case.

 

[koshergrl]

Then you lose.

 

[holston]

Why, because you think his views are hateful?

Pretty much every anti-Christian thread in the religion forum should be in the rubber room. Take your whine there.

I'm no more hateful than he and his atheist/Zionist compatriots are and he knows it.

What they do is needle and weasel around in hopes of making you angry enough to insult them in the same manner in which they insult you.
Then like little tattle tales they go running to the monitors hoping to have you censored and removed from the discussion so they will no longer be burdened with the awful task of having to defend the indefensible.

The only defense for lies is more lies.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, you're less hateful. They go out of their way to target Christians, to troll threads, post deliberate and blatant lies. They attempt to shut down the opposition first by lying, then via censorship, while they blatantly and knowingly spread propaganda meant to diminish liberty, re-create history, and establish a totalitarian government here in the US.

I have yet to see you posting the hateful nonsense they do. But they will claim you are hateful...as they label anything they disagree with as 1. illegal, 2. hateful, 3. racist.

That's what propagandists do, in order to justify the silencing/imprisonment/death of the opposition. It starts just like this.

 

[Boss]

Yes they can change.
That's why the originalist movement being heralded by a black man is such an anomaly.
You are in Alabama, right?
What would your status be right now under an originalist understanding of the COTUS?

I would be a free man with equal rights. You see, between 1865 and 1870, Congress passed and the States ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. This simply overrules any previous interpretation of the Constitution by previous courts or Congresses. Constitutional originalists do not object to legitimate passage of amendments to the Constitution, this was a built-in function of the Constitution itself, to allow the people to change with the times.

Since Justice Black's court ruled, it is understood that the establishment clause prevents the government or its institutions to give the implication of support for any faith tradition.

Which is clearly and certainly what I stated to the letter. I disagree with his interpretation and ruling. I think he was wrong, and so do millions of others. His interpretation is simply not what the Constitution said, meant or implied, and it wasn't until 1947 that became the understanding.

The fact that the COTUS states its neutrality toward religion doesn't mean it is "concerned" with religion.

Well I disagree, certainly it does. How can it state something and not be concerned with it?

It means it is specifically and clearly stating it is not concerned with it.

Sorry but the text does NOT state any such thing. It specifically and clearly states Congress can't make laws respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Not a word about "not concerned with it" in there as best I can tell.

To not state it clearly, as it does, would leave the issue of religious influence on government an open question.

Nowhere is it stated that religion can't influence government. Congress can't pass laws establishing religion. That's what it says. It doesn't confirm we are a secular nation or that religion can't be exercised in government domain. Those are misinterpretations stemming from Hugo Black's ruling in 1947.

They categorically stated otherwise and closed the question with a slam.
Justice Black merely stated the obvious.

Well, they simply DON'T categorically state otherwise or close the question. To "categorically" state what you claim, the COTUS would read: "Government is secular and cannot respect anything religious under any circumstance...Religion is never to be recognized by Government in any way...No one is ever permitted to exercise religion within the confines of government domain under any condition." If the COTUS said this, I would agree that it "categorically" stated it. As it stands, that's not what is written.

Justice Black misinterpreted Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1947, and since then, we've ostensibly had "secular government" in the US. It's an incorrect and terrible misinterpretation, and one that has been a major cause of many societal problems since.

 

[holston]

Actually, you're less hateful. They go out of their way to target Christians, to troll threads, post deliberate and blatant lies. They attempt to shut down the opposition first by lying, then via censorship, while they blatantly and knowingly spread propaganda meant to diminish liberty, re-create history, and establish a totalitarian government here in the US.

I have yet to see you posting the hateful nonsense they do. But they will claim you are hateful...as they label anything they disagree with as 1. illegal, 2. hateful, 3. racist.

That's what propagandists do, in order to justify the silencing/imprisonment/death of the opposition. It starts just like this.

"Christianity" is comprised of tens of hundreds of different denominations.
Just like the contests between the Catholics and Protestant these differing denominations exist because men either can't agree or get along.

At the time the framers of the Constitution were busy making the blueprint for the US government, I doubt if they gave much thought to Islam or Judaism becoming the threats they are today.

It is much more likely that they didn't want someone like Queen "Bloody" Mary arising to power and burning people who didn't join the Catholic Church or Henry the VIII chopping people's head off who didn't want to become Protestants.


http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/queen-mary.html

The ebb and flow of freedom continued through the 1540's...and into the 1550's. After King Henry VIII, King Edward VI took the throne, and after his death, the reign of Queen “Bloody” Mary was the next obstacle to the printing of the Bible in English. She was possessed in her quest to return England to the Roman Church. In 1555, John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers and Thomas Cranmer were both burned at the stake. Mary went on to burn reformers at the stake by the hundreds for the "crime" of being a Protestant. This era was known as the Marian Exile, and the refugees fled from England with little hope of ever seeing their home or friends again. During their exile, they produced the famous 1560 Geneva Bible which was "The Bible of the Protestant Reformation", from which many home-schooled their children.

“Bloody Mary”… Relentless Papist and Mass-Murderer

Mary had always rejected and resented the break with Rome that her father had instituted and his subsequent establishment of the Anglican Church that had flowed from her half-brother's protestantism, and now she tried to turn England back to Roman Catholicism. This effort was carried out by force, and hundreds of Protestant leaders were executed. The first was John Rogers (a.k.a. “Thomas Matthews&#8221, the printer of the “Matthews-Tyndale Bible”. His execution was followed by the execution of former Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, who was primarily responsible for the printing of the “Great Bible”. Hundreds more would follow in Mary’s bloody reign of terror. This earned the queen the title of “Bloody Mary”.

Thomas Becket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas Becket (also known as Saint Thomas of Canterbury, Thomas of London,[1] and later Thomas à Becket;[note 1] c. 1118 (or 1120) – 29 December 1170) was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1162 until his murder in 1170. He is venerated as a saint and martyr by both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. He engaged in conflict with Henry II of England over the rights and privileges of the Church and was murdered by followers of the king in Canterbury Cathedral. Soon after his death, he was canonised by Pope Alexander III.

One could be murdered for being a Catholic by Protestants, or for being Protestant by Catholics.

Even among Protestant denominations there are people who would do the same to each other.

The Founders new this and tried to set up a system of government which would prevent fanatics like these and other tyrants from acquiring so much political power that they could order anyone executed.

The NEO-CONS have succeeded in giving this kind of power into the hands of their puppet Yomamma.

Since the Neo-Cons have supplanted the original Republican party, and since it was Neo-Cons and Zionists who ensured the success of 9/11 to drag the US into war(s) unnecessarily, sponsored the "Patriot" Act, the NDAA, the Expatriation Act, declared the US to be a battle ground, put a velvet form of martial law in place, and etc,
it is only reasonable that we give them credit for their work.

And since the Ne-Cons were started by Jews and receive their marching orders from the Zionist faction, we have the Jews in general to thank for all of this.

They know what I am saying is true. But they let on like I'm saying it because I "hate" them.

Somehow we are all supposed to believe that only Anglo Saxon non-Jewish whites, Christians , and Muslims are the only people in the world capable of conspiring to get their way and hating their enemies.

I assure you. There is nothing in the "WASP" genetic code which guarantees "racism" or hatred anymore than that which exists in the Ashkenazim/Khazar Klan.

The things I have been discussing are nothing less than political realities which they want to deny because they know that once the majority of people in the US realize it they will no longer be so easy to manipulate via the media.

I admit that I too was deceived by Bumbling Bush and all the lies about terrorist camps and "WMDs" and Yellow Cake.
I sorely resent being taken for a Putz . But that's exactly what the Neo- CONs have done to the US. And they continue on a course which can lead nowhere except to the collapse of the US as a sovereign nation.

Those Jews who are seeking a "Mashianic Age" will welcome this demise as a prelude to the coming "New World Order" which they no doubt realize will actuality be a JEW World Order.

Why? Because they know who pulls the purse strings of the US and other countries like France Germany, and England. They know who controls the World Bank, the IMF, the Federal Reserve, and other major financial institutions which have global power.


The Jews are no more about freedom of religion than the Muslims are or they wouldn't have had Daddy Bush sign the House Resolution of "Noahide" Law and they wouldn't be so active and MILITANT in their efforts to squelch the doctrines of Christ. And that's why you don't see very many of them coming out to denounce some of intentions and motives of some prominent members of their own "tribe". Anyone who does is "a self hating Jew".

Why do you think the Israelites ban evangelistic proselytizing in Israel?

For the same reason they would ban it in the US and blot out the name of Christ altogether if they could. If the nincompoop JUDEO xtians continue supporting them unconditionally believing in the fairy tale that these imposters are "God's Chosen People" they may well succeed in doing so.

Hypocritical "Christians" notwithstanding, including all the modern day Marys and Henrys,
the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ should no more be silenced today than it was when the Apostles were murdered for not keeping their mouths shut about it.


If this nation sits on it's hands on it's big rump and yields complete control to the Jewish Zionist Social-Political Faction in the US they may wake up and realize that Christianity has died out in the general population and there will no more exist even the semblance of it.

The Apostle Paul spoke of men even in his day who were sewing discord, trying to make his life more difficult, and preaching the Gospel as a means of self promotion. But that didn't bother him too badly because as he said, "Nevertheless, the Gospel is preached."

The most important thing about all that was that the message got out.


The situation man is in today is no different than it was then as far as his appointment with death and the judgement that awaits them.

Societies which sanction "Christianity" and teach it, even if it is only mostly superficial, I believe will profit from doing so despite the Charlatans and hypocrites for the very reason that those pretenders must at least make an appearance of it whether it is a part of their inmost being or not. This is because of societal pressures put upon people to accept what is in vogue or the norm. I dislike PRETENSE as much as anyone here. But I won't allow the pretense of some to cause me to abandon my faith or wish to see it destroyed. Let them be hypocrites if that be the case. They will have to learn to overlook my weaknesses as well.

Today this social pressure to conform comes more from "Political Correctness" than it does from the true application of the doctrines of Christ.

And who is it that sets the tempo for "Political Correctness" if it isn't those who control the media?
And who is in charge of the media if it isn't the "Jews"?

I say "Jew" to refer to those who ascribe to the Machiavellian doctrines of Judaic Talmudism.


If anything, it is the Jewish coalitions who HATE the "WASPs".

Why?
Because they stand in the way of their "Mashianic Age" and the acquisition of all wealth and power for themselves.
Furthermore they resent any cultural or religious heritages which do not wreak of their own in just the manner that anyone else does.


It is true that many people are quick to fight over religious issues. This doesn't mean that Christ ordered them to do so. (Quite the contrary. This is the communist rationale for trying to eliminate it and anything else which would usurp a tittle of State power.
I don't accept their reasoning that Christian teachings are the cause of man's tendency to be that way.



People who want to do things which are condemned by the Bible naturally do not want those doctrines embraced by the public because such a public attitude would either prevent them from doing as they wish or make it very difficult for them to do so.

I agree whole heartedly that "Christians" ought to behave like Christians.

But the fact that many of them fail to or are Christian in name only is no good reason to dispose of the Gospel of Christ.

Why?

Because to a believer the Gospel of Christ is the power of salvation and the hope of everlasting life.

Jews, Marxists, and homos don't like this idea one bit because of the teachings associated with it that do not condone their private agendas.

Mark my word. Religious Jews can be every bit as adamant about getting their own way and just as militant as any Muslim or Christian.

No one can attribute all the sin and violence in the world to Christianity unless they confuse the person of Christ with other persons.

And Jews do not have the market cornered on acts of benevolence or the generation of peace.

Only a person lacking common sense could believe otherwise.

Even Buddhists and Hindus can be seen to erupt in fits of anger and to fight over things.


Human nature is human nature.

What people are TAUGHT can vary. And what people are TAUGHT CAN have an effect on their behavior!

A good parent tries to teach his child to do good. But since a child has a mind of his own, there is no 100% guarantee that he cannot rebel against that which others have tried to instill in him. This independence of will would exist under any other system.

Parents aren't perfect anymore than humans in general. The same thing is true with "Christians".

Destroying Christianity or trying to censor the teaching of it will not improve human behavior. If anything, the suppression of Biblical admonitions is bound to make it worse.

I can allow myself to get fuming mad because the world is such a Mucked up place. But it won't do me a bit of good to cut my own nose off to spite my face because of despair.

The hope in Christ that some people cling to provides a good reason NOT to despair and a rationale for not allowing anger to dictate his actions.

Marx can call that "the opiate of the masses". But what would Marx have to offer in exchange for it? Even if his "worker's paradise" was viable (it isn't) the absurdity of this life and the futility of all work would be exposed for the lack of any hope. The incentive to do good is much more likely to die in conditions where there are no consequences for misconduct. A Christian believes in a higher authority than man which exists even in the absence of police forces, a military, or any other human threat. His actions are commensurate with the will of God insofar as he is actually a Christian. His gets his guidance from the Bible, not the Communist or Humanist manifesto.

NO GOVERNMENT of man can offer a person the hope of eternal life. And no man made government can make this existence any less absurd if all you have in it is all there ever will be or you can ever hope for.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Yes they can change.
That's why the originalist movement being heralded by a black man is such an anomaly.
You are in Alabama, right?
What would your status be right now under an originalist understanding of the COTUS?

I would be a free man with equal rights. You see, between 1865 and 1870, Congress passed and the States ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. This simply overrules any previous interpretation of the Constitution by previous courts or Congresses. Constitutional originalists do not object to legitimate passage of amendments to the Constitution, this was a built-in function of the Constitution itself, to allow the people to change with the times.

Since Justice Black's court ruled, it is understood that the establishment clause prevents the government or its institutions to give the implication of support for any faith tradition.

Which is clearly and certainly what I stated to the letter. I disagree with his interpretation and ruling. I think he was wrong, and so do millions of others. His interpretation is simply not what the Constitution said, meant or implied, and it wasn't until 1947 that became the understanding.



Well I disagree, certainly it does. How can it state something and not be concerned with it?



Sorry but the text does NOT state any such thing. It specifically and clearly states Congress can't make laws respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Not a word about "not concerned with it" in there as best I can tell.

To not state it clearly, as it does, would leave the issue of religious influence on government an open question.

Nowhere is it stated that religion can't influence government. Congress can't pass laws establishing religion. That's what it says. It doesn't confirm we are a secular nation or that religion can't be exercised in government domain. Those are misinterpretations stemming from Hugo Black's ruling in 1947.

They categorically stated otherwise and closed the question with a slam.
Justice Black merely stated the obvious.

Well, they simply DON'T categorically state otherwise or close the question. To "categorically" state what you claim, the COTUS would read: "Government is secular and cannot respect anything religious under any circumstance...Religion is never to be recognized by Government in any way...No one is ever permitted to exercise religion within the confines of government domain under any condition." If the COTUS said this, I would agree that it "categorically" stated it. As it stands, that's not what is written.

Justice Black misinterpreted Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1947, and since then, we've ostensibly had "secular government" in the US. It's an incorrect and terrible misinterpretation, and one that has been a major cause of many societal problems since.

No, Justice Black got it right, and the COTUS simply worded it better than this clumsy vomit you have created.
See if you can get enough justices appointed to see it your way, and good luck. Even the conservative justices don't lean your way.

 

[Boss]

No, Justice Black got it right, and the COTUS simply worded it better than this clumsy vomit you have created.
See if you can get enough justices appointed to see it your way, and good luck. Even the conservative justices don't lean your way.

Well no, I believe Justice Black got it wrong and YOU are the one stumbling around with clumsy wording that is not found in the Constitution. I've demonstrated this clearly. Justices do not have the final say on what the Constitution means. If that were so, I would probably still be someone's property.

 

[thebrucebeat]

No, Justice Black got it right, and the COTUS simply worded it better than this clumsy vomit you have created.
See if you can get enough justices appointed to see it your way, and good luck. Even the conservative justices don't lean your way.

Well no, I believe Justice Black got it wrong and YOU are the one stumbling around with clumsy wording that is not found in the Constitution. I've demonstrated this clearly. Justices do not have the final say on what the Constitution means. If that were so, I would probably still be someone's property.

I love talking to you. You always step in it.
Justices DO have the final say on what the Constitution means.
You can have the states ratify an amendment.
The justices are then empowered to interpret its application from then on.
That is their job.
Specifically.
And for 67 years the greatest legal minds have disagreed with you.
You have demonstrated only one thing clearly and consistently.
You get very excited, and then puke on your shoes.
Every time.
You would "still" be someone's property?
LOL!
When were you freed?

 

[orogenicman]

No, Justice Black got it right, and the COTUS simply worded it better than this clumsy vomit you have created.
See if you can get enough justices appointed to see it your way, and good luck. Even the conservative justices don't lean your way.

Well no, I believe Justice Black got it wrong and YOU are the one stumbling around with clumsy wording that is not found in the Constitution. I've demonstrated this clearly. Justices do not have the final say on what the Constitution means. If that were so, I would probably still be someone's property.

And you have every right to believe it, even when you are wrong. You can thank the founding fathers for that.

 

[thanatos144]

Fear. That is why people hate God. It is also why so many are antisemitic.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Fear. That is why people hate God. It is also why so many are antisemitic.

Your close.
Fear is why people love god.

 

[Boss]

No, Justice Black got it right, and the COTUS simply worded it better than this clumsy vomit you have created.
See if you can get enough justices appointed to see it your way, and good luck. Even the conservative justices don't lean your way.

Well no, I believe Justice Black got it wrong and YOU are the one stumbling around with clumsy wording that is not found in the Constitution. I've demonstrated this clearly. Justices do not have the final say on what the Constitution means. If that were so, I would probably still be someone's property.

I love talking to you. You always step in it.
Justices DO have the final say on what the Constitution means.
You can have the states ratify an amendment.
The justices are then empowered to interpret its application from then on.
That is their job.
Specifically.
And for 67 years the greatest legal minds have disagreed with you.
You have demonstrated only one thing clearly and consistently.
You get very excited, and then puke on your shoes.
Every time.
You would "still" be someone's property?
LOL!
When were you freed?

You are crazier than I previously thought. No, the SCOTUS does NOT have the authority to overrule a Constitutional Amendment. The do not have the final say, if they did, black people would still be property as they ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford. They also ruled the Federal government had no authority to establish "free states" in the United States, and it was the second time in history the court overruled a Congressional action. They have never attempted to do it since. Congress retains the power to make law, not the fucking SCOTUS!

My God, I had no idea you were so opposed to representative democracy! That's a scary thing, and anyone who agrees with you or thanks your post is a danger to our nation and form of government.

 

[orogenicman]

Fear. That is why people hate God. It is also why so many are antisemitic.

Fear is why people prostrate themselves before the alter. Atheists don't do that because we have no illusions that an alter is anything other than furniture.

 

[thanatos144]

Fear. That is why people hate God. It is also why so many are antisemitic.

Fear is why people prostrate themselves before the alter. Atheists don't do that because we have no illusions that an alter is anything other than furniture.

And what the hell do think you have been doing this whole thread?????? You are preaching more then everyone who believes in God. Stop pushing your religion on me.