Do Democrat Law Makers Ever Read The Constitution?

Robo

Robo

Verified User
Sit-in demonstrations, any good patriotic American would logically think would be instigated strictly protesting violations of our Constitution by government. Seems the Congressional House Democrats see them as demonstrations to protest an unwillingness by the Republicans to violate the Constitution.

Can anybody here argue favorable for the Democrats insistence to violate their oath of office “to govern in accordance with the Constitution?” Do Democrats not understand the 5th Amendment and the inalienable right of “due process of law?” Do Democrat law makers even read the Constitution, the rule of law they swear their oath too?
 
is that a rhetorical question

democrats wipe their asses with the US Constitution. Remember when Obama said that the US Constitution is a set of "negative rights". What he meant is that the US Constitution is an impediment to statists who want to run our lives for us
 
Robo said:
Sit-in demonstrations, any good patriotic American would logically think would be instigated strictly protesting violations of our Constitution by government. Seems the Congressional House Democrats see them as demonstrations to protest an unwillingness by the Republicans to violate the Constitution.

Can anybody here argue favorable for the Democrats insistence to violate their oath of office “to govern in accordance with the Constitution?” Do Democrats not understand the 5th Amendment and the inalienable right of “due process of law?” Do Democrat law makers even read the Constitution, the rule of law they swear their oath too?
Click to expand...


On a separate note, this is why I have parted ways with the GOP. While they are right on the issue, they are feckless in fighting the PR war with the demalquedacrats. They should be out in full force saying this is about DUE PROCESS. But, no they let the demalquedacrats win the PR wars EVERY SINGLE TIME.

This is why Trump won the primary. He may not be the most polished, but he doesn't take shit and people are tired of the GOP taking shit
 
Teflon Don said:
On a separate note, this is why I have parted ways with the GOP. While they are right on the issue, they are feckless in fighting the PR war with the demalquedacrats. They should be out in full force saying this is about DUE PROCESS. But, no they let the demalquedacrats win the PR wars EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Click to expand...

they did that because if they came out for due process now, they'd be heralded as hypocrites for ignoring due process for the crap after 9/11
 
Teflon Don said:
On a separate note, this is why I have parted ways with the GOP. While they are right on the issue, they are feckless in fighting the PR war with the demalquedacrats. They should be out in full force saying this is about DUE PROCESS. But, no they let the demalquedacrats win the PR wars EVERY SINGLE TIME.

This is why Trump won the primary. He may not be the most polished, but he doesn't take shit and people are tired of the GOP taking shit
Click to expand...

Good luck with Trump. He's the only candidate I've seen in my lifetime that had the balls to stand on the stage and admit, actually brag about making his fortune bribing public officials. Apparently he's not smart enough to realize that's a felony. Then there's Hillary the other felon that sure as hell will be exempted from prosecution by the most corrupt Obama Justice Department.

"Don't vote, it only encourages the corrupt bastards." --P.J O'Rourke
 
Robo said:
Sit-in demonstrations, any good patriotic American would logically think would be instigated strictly protesting violations of our Constitution by government. Seems the Congressional House Democrats see them as demonstrations to protest an unwillingness by the Republicans to violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I suppose the first question would be: What unwillingness to engage in violation of the Constitution are the Democrats protesting?
 
“Do Democrat Law Makers Ever Read The Constitution?”

They read the Constitution’s case law, which most conservatives clearly don’t do.

And if conservatives bothered to read the Constitution’s case law, including Second Amendment jurisprudence, they’d learn that the firearm regulatory measures democrats advocate in no way ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DC v. Heller (2008)

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
 
F_Donald_Weldon said:
“Do Democrat Law Makers Ever Read The Constitution?”

They read the Constitution’s case law, which most conservatives clearly don’t do.

And if conservatives bothered to read the Constitution’s case law, including Second Amendment jurisprudence, they’d learn that the firearm regulatory measures democrats advocate in no way ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DC v. Heller (2008)

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Poor Bobo.
 
LOL Post 8 above asked the pertinent question.

But I'm sure we didn't need the Civil war if only we followed the constitution. And Civil rights that was easy too. Separate but equal sure thing. Labor rights, just ask and you shall receive. Wingnuts like children ask the funniest questions. You all just lookee here in this here document, dats all you needs to do. Too funny.

A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla's Strategy And Tactics

http://conceptualguerilla.com/essay.../a-short-history-of-conservative-obstruction/

http://conceptualguerilla.com/essays/defeat-the-right-in-three-minutes/

http://conceptualguerilla.com/essays/the-big-picture-essays-on-political-philosophy-and-history/
 
F_Donald_Weldon said:
“Do Democrat Law Makers Ever Read The Constitution?”

They read the Constitution’s case law, which most conservatives clearly don’t do.

And if conservatives bothered to read the Constitution’s case law, including Second Amendment jurisprudence, they’d learn that the firearm regulatory measures democrats advocate in no way ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DC v. Heller (2008)

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

This thread is about "due process." Have you ever heard of it?
 
midcan5 said:
LOL Post 8 above asked the pertinent question.

But I'm sure we didn't need the Civil war if only we followed the constitution. And Civil rights that was easy too. Separate but equal sure thing. Labor rights, just ask and you shall receive. Wingnuts like children ask the funniest questions. You all just lookee here in this here document, dats all you needs to do. Too funny.

A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla's Strategy And Tactics

http://conceptualguerilla.com/essay.../a-short-history-of-conservative-obstruction/

http://conceptualguerilla.com/essays/defeat-the-right-in-three-minutes/

http://conceptualguerilla.com/essays/the-big-picture-essays-on-political-philosophy-and-history/
Click to expand...

This thread isn't about conservative violations of the Constitution, true conservatives don't violate the Constitution, neither do true liberals. This thread is about the present leftist Democrats in the Congress. Too bad you cannot distinguish between a true liberal and a leftist pig. Too bad you cannot distinguish between a rightist pig and a true conservative. Instead you attempt to justify the Constitution violations of your leftist pigs with the violations of the rightist pigs. The problem of course is, there's little to no difference between pigs and you're not intelligent enough to know pigs from classical liberals and classical conservatives.
 
Teflon Don said:
is that a rhetorical question

democrats wipe their asses with the US Constitution. Remember when Obama said that the US Constitution is a set of "negative rights". What he meant is that the US Constitution is an impediment to statists who want to run our lives for us
Click to expand...

dear fucking lying idiot,


no one is suggesting taking your metal penis replacement from you


fuck you very much
 
Elvis said:
most wealthy politicians are crooks in our eyes
Click to expand...

"Elvis replied to a thread Yet more reason to set a maximum voting age of 45 in Off Topic Forum

I say if you aren't paying taxes from money earned, you shouldn't vote. Let the people financing the country decide how they represented"


what would you know about the constitution asshole
 
F_Donald_Weldon said:
“Do Democrat Law Makers Ever Read The Constitution?”

They read the Constitution’s case law, which most conservatives clearly don’t do.

And if conservatives bothered to read the Constitution’s case law, including Second Amendment jurisprudence, they’d learn that the firearm regulatory measures democrats advocate in no way ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DC v. Heller (2008)

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the founding fathers would allow federal government regulation over arms after they had just experienced a central government trying to take their arms.
 
F_Donald_Weldon said:
“Do Democrat Law Makers Ever Read The Constitution?”

They read the Constitution’s case law, which most conservatives clearly don’t do.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution do we find the part about how “case law” can trump the text of the Constitution and in particular, in the issue of this thread, trump the 5th amendment, and again in particular, “due process?”

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DC v. Heller (2008)

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Unless and until America’s law makers invoke article 5 of the Constitution and thereby amend the Constitution, there’s no constitutional authority for any legislation to prohibit any arms from the “keeping” and “bearing” of the people regardless of what any partisan corrupt court says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top