Do Democrat Law Makers Ever Read The Constitution?

Unfortunately, Democrats and Republicans have both supported bills that lessened Due Process, like The Patriot Act and NDAA. It's kind of hypocritical to support NDAA and then turn around and say you're protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens when it comes to gun control. Personally, I think both parties have some screws loose. Another example is Death Warrants on US citizens. I think they should have been apprehended as criminals by a law enforcement agency and tried in court like criminals. This whole War on Terror business has gone to people's heads and got us acting like it's a real war.

When it comes to fighting terrorism and mass murderers, it's just unrealistic, people in the government have unrealistic expectations. You can't stop the lone wolf without turning our country into a police state and no one is going to support that so just accept that fact as part of life. Terrorism and mass murders aren't even that common, you are more likely to die in a car crash, statistically.

As far as the "sit-in" goes, it's a publicity stunt to make Republicans look bad and to make it look like the Democrats tried their best. The idea of preventing people on the terrorist watchlist from buying guns, IS unconstitutional in my opinion however you can change anything with a 3/4ths vote. Now if it included the judicial process, like they had to prove a person was a terrorist in court, then I'd be okay with it but that also kind of defeats the point. They just need to accept that you can't prevent all crimes and get over it.

With that said, I do support new gun regulation. I would like to see all states treat owning a gun like driving a car. You have to have a background check and a psych eval before you can get your gun license. Then you have to renew your license every two years. Maybe even include a firearm proficiency course and teach aspiring gun owners the "civilian rules of engagement" because right now, cops get scrutinized more for a shooting than a citizen does. I personally know of someone who owned guns, then he went senile and became a danger to himself and others. The ambulance refused to drive him to the hospital. People can be too old to drive and they can be too mentally handicapped to own a gun.
 
Robo said:
"Due Process."
Click to expand...

Would you care to try again? The Democrats were not attempting to force violation of Due Process, because...

The Constitution refers to "Due Process" exactly three times, and all three times it refers with specificity to individuals and how laws are applied to them, not to Congress as a body or how it votes or does not vote.

Article the Seventh No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...

Amendment XIV, Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
 
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...

I fear you will find that opinions of the Supreme Court will find no audience here. I have quoted that portion of DC v Heller more than once on these forums, and it has always been met with accusations of judicial idiocy/activist judges/unconstitutional judges/et cetera.

It is with unfortunate and alarming frequency that posters here are willing to dismiss the validity of the Supreme Court's rulings, or its inferred authority (I would opine that it's actually an inferred obligation) to engage in Judicial review when they don't agree with the outcome.
 
Stelakh said:
Would you care to try again? The Democrats were not attempting to force violation of Due Process, because...

The Constitution refers to "Due Process" exactly three times, and all three times it refers with specificity to individuals and how laws are applied to them, not to Congress as a body or how it votes or does not vote.
Click to expand...

What? What the fuck are you talking about? The "DUE PROCESS" that the Democrats are ignoring and attempting to violate IS the due process of INDIVIDUALS, dip shit! The bastards in Congress are sworn by oath to govern by the concepts and mandates of the Constitution, moron.
 
Stelakh said:
It is with unfortunate and alarming frequency that posters here are willing to dismiss the validity of the Supreme Court's rulings, or its inferred authority (I would opine that it's actually an inferred obligation) to engage in Judicial review when they don't agree with the outcome.
Click to expand...

America's federal courts are not a judicial body of constitutional geniuses or judicially righteous souls, they're staffed by corrupt, biased, partisans from the right and left. The courts are a political body, no less political than the other two branches of the federal government. They're staffed with black robed progressives and neo-conservatives who've been nominated by corrupt partisan progressive and or neo-con Presidents, confirmed by partisan progressives and or neo-cons. They don't need to interpret the Constitution, any honest citizen of average intellect can do that. They're supposed to interpret the written legislation that comes from the linguistic gymnastics of the other branches of government in the confines of constitutional literalism.
 
Robo said:
America's federal courts are not a judicial body of constitutional geniuses or judicially righteous souls, they're staffed by corrupt, biased, partisans from the right and left. The courts are a political body, no less political than the other two branches of the federal government. They're staffed with black robed progressives and neo-conservatives who've been nominated by corrupt partisan progressive and or neo-con Presidents, confirmed by partisan progressives and or neo-cons. They don't need to interpret the Constitution, any honest citizen of average intellect can do that. They're supposed to interpret the written legislation that comes from the linguistic gymnastics of the other branches of government in the confines of constitutional literalism.
Click to expand...

Amen1_zpsd1wsuyhm.jpg
 
Full retard, thinking that most politicians, not just Democrats, care one whiff about the Constitution. And until Congress starts impeaching Judges who have disdain for it, this will only get worse.
 
Robo said:
America's federal courts are not a judicial body of constitutional geniuses or judicially righteous souls, they're staffed by corrupt, biased, partisans from the right and left. The courts are a political body, no less political than the other two branches of the federal government. They're staffed with black robed progressives and neo-conservatives who've been nominated by corrupt partisan progressive and or neo-con Presidents, confirmed by partisan progressives and or neo-cons. They don't need to interpret the Constitution, any honest citizen of average intellect can do that. They're supposed to interpret the written legislation that comes from the linguistic gymnastics of the other branches of government in the confines of constitutional literalism.
Click to expand...

Richard A. Posner, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, appointed by Reagan:

And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today
Click to expand...

Law school professors need more practical experience.
 
Right said:
No, not at all. Impeachment is almost never used, no one has accountability. Even voters don't care if a candidate is corrupt and vile, as long as they have the correct party affiliation.
Click to expand...

well, there is that, but even a democrat politician won't impeach a republican nominated judge for upholding an unconstitutional law if it's a law that increased the overreach of the federal government.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
well, there is that, but even a democrat politician won't impeach a republican nominated judge for upholding an unconstitutional law if it's a law that increased the overreach of the federal government.
Click to expand...

That, and they just vote along party lines. The impeachment process is rarely used, and when it is, the process is a sham.

I rarely find fault with the Constitution, but in this instance, it is lacking. In my opinion, all employees of FedCo, elected or otherwise, should be eligible for a recall vote by the affected states, or the affected voters.
 
Robo said:
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...

Yeah they read it but it doesn't register . . . Gun control is the one public policy issue that just exposes all their constitutional weaknesses.

Their political foundation is in collectivism and statism; they view the Constitution through those lenses which compels them to reject the basic tenets upon which the US Constitution is based. This is why they try so hard to contort and pervert the Constitution into supporting what it does not -- to the point of arguing it compels them to do precisely what the Constitution forbids.

Their agenda is entirely based in "second generation" rights which demands that "first generation" rights are sacrificed.

The first generation, embodied in the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution, led to restrictions on the state's interference in the lives of citizens and having their natural, civil and political rights respected by law. The second generation began in 1917, with the revolution in Russia. As a result of that revolution, economic, social, and cultural rights emerged. By nature, these two generations of rights assume very different roles for the state and demanding the second generation, results in promoting a political philosophy diametrically opposed to that which was established by the Constitution of the United States of America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top