Is it time to restrict gun ownership?

[SmarterthanYou]

So a passport is not needed?

You need not submit to security screening or Customs inspections?

the passport is needed for other countries. I do not need a passport to go from texas to california. I do not need to go through customs or screening to go from texas to florida.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

So you're happy with the government?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you're happy with the government?

you read an awful lot of crap in to words that don't mean what you think it means. and that question has been asked and answered twice.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

you have a right to travel, anywhere, any way, without the government requiring a 'permit'.

So you were extolling the freedoms you enjoy, rather than decrying a perceived lack of same. Got it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you were extolling the freedoms you enjoy, rather than decrying a perceived lack of same. Got it.

you must have went to the same college as topspin.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

you must have went to the same college as topspin.

Perhaps you must have gone to the same college as Topspin.

At least he doesn't reserve to himself the right to apply his personal interpretation of the Constitution, does he?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Perhaps you must have gone to the same college as Topspin.

At least he doesn't reserve to himself the right to apply his personal interpretation of the Constitution, does he?

I don't interpret the constitution, I read and understand the plain text.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

I don't interpret the constitution, I read and understand the plain text.

So your beliefs regarding Constitutional law are based on the quality of your reading and comprehension skills.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

I don't interpret the constitution, I read and understand the plain text.

So explain - in your own words - what this means: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So explain - in your own words - what this means: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

it means that the judiciary is a check on the other branches of government, and all subordinate governments, that any law written that exceeds the constitutional powers assigned to the federal government and shall be declared invalid. no interpretation involved. If congress tries to give themselves more power than is authorized in the constitution, the courts nullify it.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

it means that the judiciary is a check on the other branches of government, and all subordinate governments, that any law written that exceeds the constitutional powers assigned to the federal government and shall be declared invalid. no interpretation involved. If congress tries to give themselves more power than is authorized in the constitution, the courts nullify it.

So the judiciary must have nullified any unconstitutional acts of Congress?

That means all our current laws are constitutional?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So the judiciary must have nullified any unconstitutional acts of Congress?

That means all our current laws are constitutional?

the courts do get things wrong. they also make decisions clearly against the constitution, even acknowledge such, yet still uphold the law in question. So no, not all our laws are constitutional.

your word games are somewhat impressive, but ultimately futile. i've been playing the word games far longer than you have.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

the courts do get things wrong. they also make decisions clearly against the constitution, even acknowledge such, yet still uphold the law in question. So no, not all our laws are constitutional.

your word games are somewhat impressive, but ultimately futile. i've been playing the word games far longer than you have.

You have?

When did the courts "get things wrong"? Isn't there a Constitutional remedy that would have been applied?

Which of our current laws is unconstitutional, for example? What should be done about it?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

When did the courts "get things wrong"?

gonzalez v. raich, kelo v. new london, us v. stewart (2003)
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990)
just to name a few. do you need more?

Isn't there a Constitutional remedy that would have been applied?

depends on the circumstances of each case.

Which of our current laws is unconstitutional, for example?

one, for example is 18 U.S.C. 922 (o), otherwise known as the Hughes amendment. Do you know what this law says? Or do I need to explain it to you?

What should be done about it?

ignore it and kill any ATF agent that comes after you?

 

[zappasguitar]

the passport is needed for other countries. I do not need a passport to go from texas to california. I do not need to go through customs or screening to go from texas to florida.

if you fly you do...you will be screened that is.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

gonzalez v. raich, kelo v. new london, us v. stewart (2003)
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990)
just to name a few. do you need more?


depends on the circumstances of each case.

one, for example is 18 U.S.C. 922 (o), otherwise known as the Hughes amendment. Do you know what this law says? Or do I need to explain it to you?

ignore it and kill any ATF agent that comes after you?

So why qualify your interpretation with a question mark?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

if you fly you do...you will be screened that is.

thats why i don't fly.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So why qualify your interpretation with a question mark?

because my curiosity has the better of me. This is one of those laws that are 1000% unconstitutional, but the majority of the population and the government is for it. It's a lead in question, if it's a law that YOU yourself would consider totally unconstitutional, what would YOU do?

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

thats why i don't fly.

Never?

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

because my curiosity has the better of me. This is one of those laws that are 1000% unconstitutional, but the majority of the population and the government is for it. It's a lead in question, if it's a law that YOU yourself would consider totally unconstitutional, what would YOU do?

Obey it, and work to change it legally.