Can You Answer These Constitutional Questions?

SmarterthanYou said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Really? How so? Because as your exchanges with Jarod shows, it's YOU who are IGNORING historical precedence and facts that don't jibe with your personal opinion of what "should" be. Why don't you READ the excerpt I posted, as it gives a more balanced view on the issue.
Click to expand...


I don't need to read more court cases to understand that the judiciary has been torturing and twisting the plain words of the constitution for their own ends.
Click to expand...

The libertarian lunkhead strikes again!

It amazes me how willfully ignorant you are, and how proudly you display that trait! Only a complete idiot claims to have the brains to discuss matters of law, and then REFUSES TO READ LEGAL CASES that don't agree with his viewpoint.


And to make matters worse, STY blathers on about the judiciary as if it's NOT constitutional...despite the fact that it is

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa081400a.htm

Like it or not the SCOTUS has and will make decisions that does not satisfy everyone....this is why we have elections, so that Presidents can and do place appointments. Also, the Congress/Senate can over ride a SCOTUS decision, ya know.

So spare us all this libertarian lunacy, will ya please?
 
Taichiliberal said:
The libertarian lunkhead strikes again!

It amazes me how willfully ignorant you are, and how proudly you display that trait! Only a complete idiot claims to have the brains to discuss matters of law, and then REFUSES TO READ LEGAL CASES that don't agree with his viewpoint.


And to make matters worse, STY blathers on about the judiciary as if it's NOT constitutional...despite the fact that it is

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa081400a.htm

Like it or not the SCOTUS has and will make decisions that does not satisfy everyone....this is why we have elections, so that Presidents can and do place appointments. Also, the Congress/Senate can over ride a SCOTUS decision, ya know.

So spare us all this libertarian lunacy, will ya please?
Click to expand...

tell us in your own words if the general welfare clause trumps the rest of the Constitution? If the general welfare clause trumps the rest of the Constitution, why did the founders waste so much paper and ink writing the rest of the Constitution? What DOESN'T the general welfare clause trump in the Constitution? Who gets to decide what's a valid action of government in the name of the general welfare? By what authority? What's the meaning of the 10th Amendment in your own words.

Oh! That's right you avoid the relevant questions related to the "general welfare" issue because it is so perfectly apparent by any rational observation that to insinuate that the federal government can constitutionally make law based on the absurd idea that it can do whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare is willful stupidity and arrogance of the first order. You've painted your stupid leftist ass into that willfully ignorant corner and you have no way out. Corrupt court cases and decisions by corrupt partisan ideologue judges doesn't trump or refute a fucking dime's worth of pure constitutional plain English scripture.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
The libertarian lunkhead strikes again!

It amazes me how willfully ignorant you are, and how proudly you display that trait! Only a complete idiot claims to have the brains to discuss matters of law, and then REFUSES TO READ LEGAL CASES that don't agree with his viewpoint.


And to make matters worse, STY blathers on about the judiciary as if it's NOT constitutional...despite the fact that it is

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa081400a.htm

Like it or not the SCOTUS has and will make decisions that does not satisfy everyone....this is why we have elections, so that Presidents can and do place appointments. Also, the Congress/Senate can over ride a SCOTUS decision, ya know.

So spare us all this libertarian lunacy, will ya please?
Click to expand...

Case law, especially constitutional case law, has nothing to do with what the Constitution's intent, and this was made clear by the men who wrote the Constitution.

Ask.com is the source: there was no explicit or implicit intention to leave it up to the judiciary to establish their authority.

Neither the Congress or Senate can override a Supreme Court decision.
 
Taichiliberal said:
the libertarian lunkhead strikes again!
Click to expand...

tell us in your own words if the general welfare clause trumps the rest of the Constitution? If the general welfare clause trumps the rest of the Constitution, why did the founders waste so much paper and ink writing the rest of the Constitution? What DOESN'T the general welfare clause trump in the Constitution? Who gets to decide what's a valid action of government in the name of the general welfare? By what authority? What's the meaning of the 10th Amendment in your own words.

Oh! That's right you avoid the relevant questions related to the "general welfare" issue because it is so perfectly apparent by any rational observation that to insinuate that the federal government can constitutionally make law based on the absurd idea that it can do whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare is willful stupidity and arrogance of the first order. You've painted your stupid leftist ass into that willfully ignorant corner and you have no way out. Corrupt court cases and decisions by corrupt partisan ideologue judges doesn't trump or refute a fucking dime's worth of pure constitutional plain English scripture.
 
Classic Liberal said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
The libertarian lunkhead strikes again!

It amazes me how willfully ignorant you are, and how proudly you display that trait! Only a complete idiot claims to have the brains to discuss matters of law, and then REFUSES TO READ LEGAL CASES that don't agree with his viewpoint.


And to make matters worse, STY blathers on about the judiciary as if it's NOT constitutional...despite the fact that it is

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa081400a.htm

Like it or not the SCOTUS has and will make decisions that does not satisfy everyone....this is why we have elections, so that Presidents can and do place appointments. Also, the Congress/Senate can over ride a SCOTUS decision, ya know.

So spare us all this libertarian lunacy, will ya please?
Click to expand...

tell us in your own words if the general welfare clause trumps the rest of the Constitution? If the general welfare clause trumps the rest of the Constitution, why did the founders waste so much paper and ink writing the rest of the Constitution? What DOESN'T the general welfare clause trump in the Constitution? Who gets to decide what's a valid action of government in the name of the general welfare? By what authority? What's the meaning of the 10th Amendment in your own words.

Oh! That's right you avoid the relevant questions related to the "general welfare" issue because it is so perfectly apparent by any rational observation that to insinuate that the federal government can constitutionally make law based on the absurd idea that it can do whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare is willful stupidity and arrogance of the first order. You've painted your stupid leftist ass into that willfully ignorant corner and you have no way out. Corrupt court cases and decisions by corrupt partisan ideologue judges doesn't trump or refute a fucking dime's worth of pure constitutional plain English scripture.
Click to expand...

Unlike you, I don't rely on my personal opinion, supposition or conjecture on this issue. I use historical, documented and valid FACTS to support my assertions.

Like all intellectually dishonest neocon/teabagger/libbertrarians flunkies, you don't DARE address the FACTS I put forth....instead you create some moronic "yes/no" alternative that in your mind will "win" for you if no one buys into your BS.

Sorry toodles, but you've played that card before...and in light of what is actually in the Constitution and it's amendments and rights, along with the historical precedent of cases, your question is worthless ploy.

You and STY have a nice time now, ya hear?
 
Asa said:
Case law, especially constitutional case law, has nothing to do with what the Constitution's intent, and this was made clear by the men who wrote the Constitution.

Ask.com is the source: there was no explicit or implicit intention to leave it up to the judiciary to establish their authority.

Neither the Congress or Senate can override a Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...

Not quite:

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm
 
Asa said:
Case law, especially constitutional case law, has nothing to do with what the Constitution's intent, and this was made clear by the men who wrote the Constitution.

Ask.com is the source: there was no explicit or implicit intention to leave it up to the judiciary to establish their authority.

Neither the Congress or Senate can override a Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they can. The RFRA did which is the basis for the Hobby Lobby case. They could also amend the Constitution.

Conservatives just come off as ignorant cranks whenever they discuss the judiciary. They complain that the judiciary does not stop the widely supported legislative acts that stretch the commerce or general welfare clause but cry about activist judges when they strike down laws that clearly violate the privileges and immunities of citizens.

The courts are hesitant to check the legislature for good reason, only stepping in when there is a clear violation of the rights of citizens. If you think the feds are doing too much then your beef is with Congress.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Yeah, they can. The RFRA did which is the basis for the Hobby Lobby case. They could also amend the Constitution.

Conservatives just come off as ignorant cranks whenever they discuss the judiciary. They complain that the judiciary does not stop the widely supported legislative acts that stretch the commerce or general welfare clause but cry about activist judges when they strike down laws that clearly violate the privileges and immunities of citizens.

The courts are hesitant to check the legislature for good reason, only stepping in when there is a clear violation of the rights of citizens. If you think the feds are doing too much then your beef is with Congress.
Click to expand...

They can? I presume you will provide the evidence of this from the convention debates granting this power from transcripts never before seen.

And to show I am not an illiterate conservative crank, however you want to frame your argument about the history of the judiciary, if it is not accurate, I will correct it with actual history and intent of the judiciary.

And why do you assume I am a conservative?
 
Asa said:
They can? I presume you will provide the evidence of this from the convention debates granting this power from transcripts never before seen.

And to show I am not an illiterate conservative crank, however you want to frame your argument about the history of the judiciary, if it is not accurate, I will correct it with actual history and intent of the judiciary.

And why do you assume I am a conservative?
Click to expand...

I have already offered proof of it. Are you going to deal with it or just complain like an ignorant crank.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Unlike you, I don't rely on my personal opinion, supposition or conjecture on this issue. I use historical, documented and valid FACTS to support my assertions.
Click to expand...

So you use absurd court decisions like Roberts constitutionality of the Obama-Carelessness handed down by corrupted, partisan ideologue judges and call it constitutional decorum, what else isn’t new? Let it be noted that I back my arguments with actual scripture from the Constitution itself.

Like all intellectually dishonest neocon/teabagger/libbertrarians flunkies, you don't DARE address the FACTS I put forth....instead you create some moronic "yes/no" alternative that in your mind will "win" for you if no one buys into your BS.
Click to expand...

Oh! But I have addressed your so-called “facts.” I’ve correctly observed and presented the true fact that court decisions are so very, very often tainted by judicial ideologues who have no problem being strongly influenced by their partisan ideology well over and above any old oath they took to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of these United States.

My challenge to you simply ask for honesty and pure logic by your reading and explaining of the elementary text of our written guarantee from government of individual rights and limits to government, the Constitution. But of course since you are a BIG fucking government lover and socialist authoritarian you choose to ignore the Constitution and hide under your leftist rock from constitutional questions that totally expose your lack of constitutional knowledge and your contempt for constitutional rule of law.

Sorry toodles, but you've played that card before...and in light of what is actually in the Constitution and it's amendments and rights, along with the historical precedent of cases, your question is worthless ploy.

You and STY have a nice time now, ya hear?
Click to expand...

Again you simply prove your lack of constitutional knowledge and your total contempt for constitutional rule of law. You won’t answer the following questions, because any honest answer would prove your “general welfare” argument for the fucking pathetic fraud it is.

tell us in your own words if the general welfare clause trumps the rest of the Constitution?

If the general welfare clause trumps the rest of the Constitution, why did the founders waste so much paper and ink writing the rest of the Constitution?

What DOESN'T the general welfare clause trump in the Constitution?

Who gets to decide what's a valid action of government in the name of the general welfare? By what authority?

What's the meaning of the 10th Amendment, in your own words?

I’ll wait!!!!!
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I have to point out that this is incorrect.
Click to expand...

The Congress can propose an amendment to override a Supreme Court decision, but if it gets the votes in Comgress, it is dependent on the states for approval. Congress can re-write a law to make it constitutional, but that is not overcoming, but submitting to the ruling.
 
Asa said:
The Congress can propose an amendment to override a Supreme Court decision, but if it gets the votes in Comgress, it is dependent on the states for approval. Congress can re-write a law to make it constitutional, but that is not overcoming, but submitting to the ruling.
Click to expand...

depending upon what the decision is, it could really only take just a new law, ie take the indiana supreme court decision about no longer recognizing the common law right to resist unlawful entry in to your home from cops. just a new law.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
depending upon what the decision is, it could really only take just a new law, ie take the indiana supreme court decision about no longer recognizing the common law right to resist unlawful entry in to your home from cops. just a new law.
Click to expand...


True. I was arguing in the academic sense of overriding an existing law as written.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
No, it was not deleted. The rfra did what you claim can not be done and an amendment could as well.
Click to expand...

And what did RFRA do that I claimed could not be done regarding the Hobby Lobby case? The Hobby Lobby case is before the Supreme Court, and an act is not a constitutional argument unless the act is being challenged as unconstitutional. Hobby Lobby is arguing a violation of their 1st Amendment rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top