HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!

PostmodernProphet said:
sort of depends on who the "regular" army is.......in 1776, the regular army was British......
Click to expand...

Actually, its dependent on the LAW.

The Militia Act of 1792 - Constitution Society

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia. An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Of course this was repealed by the Militia Act of 1903.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
neither act superseded the constitution........which was about the right of every turd to have a gun.......
Click to expand...

You are really ignorant.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia


The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the Dick Act, was legislation enacted by the United States Congress which created an early National Guard and codified the circumstances under which the Guard could be federalized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this is incorrect. at least half of it is. This is a country of free people with the legal right to judge both law and fact. WE THE PEOPLE wrote the constitution and WE THE PEOPLE are the final arbiters of what it means, not the courts, as they would have you believe.
Click to expand...

At no time have you ever seen "we the people" change the meaning of the Constitution except through their elected representatives or the judicial system.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the peoples right to nullify laws in court trials is proof that we the people control what the constitution means. the courts can try to reinterpret whatever it wants, but if we the people disagree, we can.
Click to expand...

Did Congress have the power to require states to expand Medicare and purchase insurance policies? If not, how is that policy changed? It is not a criminal issue and would never come before a jury for anybody to nullify.
 
During the nineteenth century, the militia in each U.S. state and territory operated under the Militia Acts of 1792. Under these laws, the question of state versus federal control of the militia was unresolved. As a result, the federal government could not rely on the militia for national defense.

As an example, during the War of 1812, members of the New York Militia refused to take part in operations against the British in Canada, arguing that their only responsibility was to defend their home state.[2] In another instance, Martin Chittenden, the Governor of Vermont, unsuccessfully attempted to recall his state's militia from the defense of Plattsburgh, claiming that it was illegal for them to operate outside Vermont's borders.[3]

Because the issue of state versus federal control was not resolved, the federal government resorted to the creation of "volunteer" units when it needed to expand the size of the Army.

These units of United States Volunteers were not militia, though often they consisted of militia units which had volunteered en masse, nor were they part of the regular Army. This solution was employed during the Mexican–American War,[4] and in the Union Army during the American Civil War.[5]

continued

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
 
Nordberg said:
Absolute fact. that is why even the Supremes have had bad arguments over it. I know the NRA has it all figured out. But rightys always claim their side as fact.
Click to expand...

fuck the NRA and fuck the righties, even though you swear I am one. and fuck the supremes about the 2nd Also. The Supremes decided a case that, quite literally, gave the federal government the power to tell you whether you could plant red roses in your front yard or not. Our government has LONG stopped operating within the confines of the constitution.
 
Flash said:
And who decides if Congress has exceeded those legislative powers? The Supreme Court meaning they are interpreting the Constitution and that sometimes involves changing the meaning (Brown changed the meaning from Plessy).
Click to expand...

The States, and in turn, the people. The States are the owners of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has no authority to change or interpret the Constitution. They have no authority over the Constitution at all. They MUST operate UNDER the Constitution. See Article III.
 
Flash said:
But they have interpreted and sometimes changed the meaning of the Constitution since the beginning of the Republic in hundreds of cases. So what you claim they cannot do they have been doing over 200 years. Your theory would put no checks on the powers of the president or Congress.
Click to expand...

They do not have that authority.
 
sear said:
a) There is no such "right". You claim there is. But in the U.S., there is no Constitutional enumeration, no statutory foundation, no ordinance, or other legal specification that renders such "right".
Click to expand...
this is one of those areas I am indeed smarter than you.
https://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/131jur.pdf

the current practice of judges instructions to not argue for or present a case for jury nullification does not negate the right, it's just being 'denied' to we the people
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top