Why do the God-haters persist?

[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.

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.

What religion where? Oh, you mean human reasoning? Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about it:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

 

[thebrucebeat]

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.

Even more stupid than your usual offerings. A total strawman argument.
Please quote where I said the SCOTUS can "overrule" an amendment.
Quote it.
You can't, because I never said that, did I? Not even anything remotely like that.
Their job is to interpret the constitutionality of an application of a law.
You are an unconscionably dim bulb. Your equally ignorant supporters will not acknowledge your dishonesty so among the cretins you will still be king.

 

[Boss]

Their job is to interpret the constitutionality of an application of a law.

No it's not, and this is a BIG problem we have in this country. Many people like you BELIEVE this is the case! That 9 men and women in robes get to decide what is or isn't "constitutional" and we are their subjects, forced to live under their rule. That wasn't the system our Founding Fathers established.

The SCOTUS is supposed to be there to decide if specific federal cases meet the criteria of conformity with the Constitution, as written. In MANY cases, they have overstepped their authority and "reinterpreted" the Constitution in order to make things constitutional that weren't. The SCOTUS merely gave themselves the power of "interpretation" in 1803 with their ruling in Marbury v. Madison. This is in direct violation of Article III where the ONLY authority of the court resides. Judicial review, that's ALL the SCOTUS is supposed to do.

Since Marbury, they have found all sorts of ways to make things "constitutional" that simply aren't found in the constitution or articulated in the Federalist Papers. (The outline and argumentative basis for the Constitution.) In some cases, what the court determined was so egregious and in error, that Congress was forced to act and pass legislation to try and undo what they did. In cases where this couldn't be done, they've passed Amendments to the Constitution and had them ratified by the States.

So NO... the SCOTUS is in NO WAY the "final arbiter" of what is Constitutional or what the law of the land shall be. That remains an authority vested in the Legislative Branch, our representatives in government, and most directly, WE THE PEOPLE! We do not live in a Kingdom ruled by a 9-headed King!

 

[thebrucebeat]

Their job is to interpret the constitutionality of an application of a law.

No it's not, and this is a BIG problem we have in this country. Many people like you BELIEVE this is the case! That 9 men and women in robes get to decide what is or isn't "constitutional" and we are their subjects, forced to live under their rule. That wasn't the system our Founding Fathers established.

The SCOTUS is supposed to be there to decide if specific federal cases meet the criteria of conformity with the Constitution, as written. In MANY cases, they have overstepped their authority and "reinterpreted" the Constitution in order to make things constitutional that weren't. The SCOTUS merely gave themselves the power of "interpretation" in 1803 with their ruling in Marbury v. Madison. This is in direct violation of Article III where the ONLY authority of the court resides. Judicial review, that's ALL the SCOTUS is supposed to do.

Since Marbury, they have found all sorts of ways to make things "constitutional" that simply aren't found in the constitution or articulated in the Federalist Papers. (The outline and argumentative basis for the Constitution.) In some cases, what the court determined was so egregious and in error, that Congress was forced to act and pass legislation to try and undo what they did. In cases where this couldn't be done, they've passed Amendments to the Constitution and had them ratified by the States.

So NO... the SCOTUS is in NO WAY the "final arbiter" of what is Constitutional or what the law of the land shall be. That remains an authority vested in the Legislative Branch, our representatives in government, and most directly, WE THE PEOPLE! We do not live in a Kingdom ruled by a 9-headed King!

"Their job is to interpret the constitutionality of an application of a law." Me

"The SCOTUS is supposed to be there to decide if specific federal cases meet the criteria of conformity with the Constitution, as written." You

They interpret "what's written" and apply it to see if it conforms to their understanding of the COTUS.
We agree.
The rest is your usual.
The Federalist Papers are irrelevant because they are not U.S. law.
The Legislative Branch CAN be overruled by the SCOTUS and was in the case of DOMA.
We have divided government to protect us against zealots like yourself.
None of the branches have exclusive authority.
Legislative by SCOTUS decision or veto.
SCOTUS by amendment.
Executive by overturning veto.
You're a hoot!

 

[BreezeWood]

Their job is to interpret the constitutionality of an application of a law.

No it's not, and this is a BIG problem we have in this country. Many people like you BELIEVE this is the case! That 9 men and women in robes get to decide what is or isn't "constitutional" and we are their subjects, forced to live under their rule. That wasn't the system our Founding Fathers established.

The SCOTUS is supposed to be there to decide if specific federal cases meet the criteria of conformity with the Constitution, as written. In MANY cases, they have overstepped their authority and "reinterpreted" the Constitution in order to make things constitutional that weren't. The SCOTUS merely gave themselves the power of "interpretation" in 1803 with their ruling in Marbury v. Madison. This is in direct violation of Article III where the ONLY authority of the court resides. Judicial review, that's ALL the SCOTUS is supposed to do.

Since Marbury, they have found all sorts of ways to make things "constitutional" that simply aren't found in the constitution or articulated in the Federalist Papers. (The outline and argumentative basis for the Constitution.) In some cases, what the court determined was so egregious and in error, that Congress was forced to act and pass legislation to try and undo what they did. In cases where this couldn't be done, they've passed Amendments to the Constitution and had them ratified by the States.

So NO... the SCOTUS is in NO WAY the "final arbiter" of what is Constitutional or what the law of the land shall be. That remains an authority vested in the Legislative Branch, our representatives in government, and most directly, WE THE PEOPLE! We do not live in a Kingdom ruled by a 9-headed King!

The SCOTUS is supposed to be there to decide if specific federal cases meet the criteria of conformity with the Constitution, as written.

AMENDMENT [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

^ an example of "as written" - and of its "clarity" of intent. (by intent)


keep in mind Boss the document had eventually to be ratified and it was predominantly written by others than (your) rightwing extremists - but not without their input, unfortunately.

.

 

[Boss]

We agree.

Then shut the fuck up!

 

[Boss]

keep in mind Boss the document had eventually to be ratified and it was predominantly written by others than (your) rightwing extremists - but not without their input, unfortunately.

And it would have NEVER been ratified if people believed the government had the right to take their guns.

AMENDMENT [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Plain and simple... It is necessary for freedom that free people have the uninfringed right to bear arms.

 

[thebrucebeat]

We agree.

Then shut the fuck up!

Always the high road my infantile friend.
You at least are avoiding digging your grave deeper by trying to defend your absurd rants.

 

[thebrucebeat]

keep in mind Boss the document had eventually to be ratified and it was predominantly written by others than (your) rightwing extremists - but not without their input, unfortunately.

And it would have NEVER been ratified if people believed the government had the right to take their guns.

AMENDMENT [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Plain and simple... It is necessary for freedom that free people have the uninfringed right to bear arms.

Purposely ignoring the "WELL REGULATED Militia" bit.
You just give and give and give.

 

[Boss]

You at least are avoiding digging your grave deeper by trying to defend your absurd rants.

But you said we agree!

keep in mind Boss the document had eventually to be ratified and it was predominantly written by others than (your) rightwing extremists - but not without their input, unfortunately.

And it would have NEVER been ratified if people believed the government had the right to take their guns.

AMENDMENT [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Plain and simple... It is necessary for freedom that free people have the uninfringed right to bear arms.

Purposely ignoring the "WELL REGULATED Militia" bit.
You just give and give and give.

Yes, and you can't have one of those, in order to defend your freedoms, if you don't have the uninfringed right to bear arms. Dingbat!

 

[Montrovant]

keep in mind Boss the document had eventually to be ratified and it was predominantly written by others than (your) rightwing extremists - but not without their input, unfortunately.

And it would have NEVER been ratified if people believed the government had the right to take their guns.

AMENDMENT [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Plain and simple... It is necessary for freedom that free people have the uninfringed right to bear arms.

I'm curious, do you think the Supreme Court has the responsibility to determine what constitutes 'arms' in the case of the second amendment?

If not, how should that be determined?

 

[thebrucebeat]

You at least are avoiding digging your grave deeper by trying to defend your absurd rants.

But you said we agree!

And it would have NEVER been ratified if people believed the government had the right to take their guns.



Plain and simple... It is necessary for freedom that free people have the uninfringed right to bear arms.

Purposely ignoring the "WELL REGULATED Militia" bit.
You just give and give and give.

Yes, and you can't have one of those, in order to defend your freedoms, if you don't have the uninfringed right to bear arms. Dingbat!

And you don't have the right to bear arms without one.
Always the high road.

 

[BreezeWood]

keep in mind Boss the document had eventually to be ratified and it was predominantly written by others than (your) rightwing extremists - but not without their input, unfortunately.

And it would have NEVER been ratified if people believed the government had the right to take their guns.

AMENDMENT [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Plain and simple... It is necessary for freedom that free people have the uninfringed right to bear arms.

Arms as determined by the court to be lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity.

.

 

[Boss]

I'm curious, do you think the Supreme Court has the responsibility to determine what constitutes 'arms' in the case of the second amendment?

If not, how should that be determined?

In my view, the SCOTUS does not have this authority. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The amendment does not stipulate the right may be infringed by a court ruling at future undisclosed date.

I know what you are getting at here... should we have the "right to bear NUKES then?" And the answer is, no. Studying the Federalist Papers and arguments presented by John Locke and others, the "right" we retain to bear arms is for our defense. We have a right to be secure in our property and life, and we do not have the right to indiscriminately harm others. Machine guns, chemical weapons, anti-tank missiles, nukes... are weapons which have the capacity to kill indiscriminately, not merely "defend" our property and life.

 

[Boss]

And you don't have the right to bear arms without one.

Uhm yes I do.

 

[Boss]

Arms as determined by the court to be lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity.

Funny... I don't see this caveat in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[BreezeWood]

Arms as determined by the court to be lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity.

Funny... I don't see this caveat in the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated Militia ... is a caveat the extrapolation is your own.

.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm curious, do you think the Supreme Court has the responsibility to determine what constitutes 'arms' in the case of the second amendment?

If not, how should that be determined?

In my view, the SCOTUS does not have this authority. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The amendment does not stipulate the right may be infringed by a court ruling at future undisclosed date.

I know what you are getting at here... should we have the "right to bear NUKES then?" And the answer is, no. Studying the Federalist Papers and arguments presented by John Locke and others, the "right" we retain to bear arms is for our defense. We have a right to be secure in our property and life, and we do not have the right to indiscriminately harm others. Machine guns, chemical weapons, anti-tank missiles, nukes... are weapons which have the capacity to kill indiscriminately, not merely "defend" our property and life.

Aren't you merely interpreting the amendment yourself here?

My point isn't simply that arms can be used to describe a whole host of things not covered by the second according to SCOTUS. The point is that almost any statement, no matter how clear it may seem, can contain some ambiguity; this is especially true with the passage of time, the rise of new technology, changes in language, etc.

So who determines what, exactly, any amendment actually means? Clearly you have your own opinion about what constitutes arms in the second. Just as clearly that opinion is not shared universally. So who has the final say?

And wow have we ranged far afield!

 

[thebrucebeat]

And you don't have the right to bear arms without one.

Uhm yes I do.

Why does the COTUS say anything about a militia, then?
I thought you were all for what is written.

 

[Boss]

Arms as determined by the court to be lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity.

Funny... I don't see this caveat in the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated Militia ... is a caveat the extrapolation is your own.

.

And what "well regulated militia" is restricted to "lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity?" ...Switzerland?