Con Law - Lesson 1 "The Preamble"

[Flash]

Wrong. You lie too much, it's boring.

Then quit giving wrong legal information. It is not that hard to research.

 

[Flash]

Yes, but with due process now there is an easier way to get there.

Only in criminal cases and those usually use 4th and 5th amendments.

 

[Flash]

No, you have the right, but with due process that right can be taken away. It’s simply not an inalienable right, it is an alienable right. The right to free speech for example is also alienable, when it comes into conflict with your right to not be the victim of a stampede in a theater where somebody yelled fire even though there was not one.

There are no absolute rights.

Agree, no rights are absolute. Free press comes closest.

Even with the "fire in a crowded theater" example it would be rare to stop a guy from yelling fire before he did so. If he was punished afterward then it was not a free speech case because his speech was not restricted.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Wrong. You lie too much, it's boring.

you don't understand the bill of rights. you're a totalitarian

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Remember that Jarod thinks he's a lawyer.

I also find it hilarious that most people here think they know the constitution and the law better than others, at least when it serves their own purposes.

 

[Into the Night]

I also find it hilarious that most people here think they know the constitution and the law better than others, at least when it serves their own purposes.

They 'know' the Constitution by ignoring what's actually written there.

 

[Into the Night]

Agree, no rights are absolute. Free press comes closest.

Even with the "fire in a crowded theater" example it would be rare to stop a guy from yelling fire before he did so. If he was punished afterward then it was not a free speech case because his speech was not restricted.

Punished for what? It's legal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Indeed, if there is a fire in the theater, he probably should.

 

[Jarod]

What's to discuss? Trumpers want to shred the Constitution, all other Americans want to support and defend it.

I'm in the "support and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic" category.

A lot of Trumppers have never read the constitution, they have no idea what it says, except what some whacko on the internet says... Do any of you honestly believe Trump has ever read it?

 

[Phantasmal]

A lot of Trumppers have never read the constitution, they have no idea what it says, except what some whacko on the internet says... Do any of you honestly believe Trump has ever read it?

He may have tried, but the big words frustrated him. There were no pictures.

 

[Jarod]

He may have tried, but the big words frustrated him. There were no pictures.

Honestly, nobody thinks that guy has any clue what’s in the constitution right?

 

[Phantasmal]

Honestly, nobody thinks that guy has any clue what’s in the constitution right?

He could not even give you the basics.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

pretty sure hardly anyone in government office, or working for government officials, has actually read the constitution. Of those who have, whether government or private citizens, most of y'all don't even understand it.

 

[Phantasmal]

pretty sure hardly anyone in government office, or working for government officials, has actually read the constitution. Of those who have, whether government or private citizens, most of y'all don't even understand it.

you think Constitutional lawyers don’t understand it. Only you!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

you think Constitutional lawyers don’t understand it. Only you!

I don't think i'm the only one that understands it. I'm sure there are several million out there that do understand it, but I wouldn't trust a constitutional lawyer to tell me what it means, especially because what they've been taught about constitutional law comes from the government...........not the constitution directly. i'm sure that's something that you are unable to comprehend

 

[Phantasmal]

I don't think i'm the only one that understands it. I'm sure there are several million out there that do understand it, but I wouldn't trust a constitutional lawyer to tell me what it means, especially because what they've been taught about constitutional law comes from the government...........not the constitution directly. i'm sure that's something that you are unable to comprehend

 

[SmarterthanYou]

that's about what I expected from someone who only trusts 'experts'............maybe you're an expert? are you an expert on the constitution and constitutional law? if so, i need you to show me something

 

[Phantasmal]

that's about what I expected from someone who only trusts 'experts'............maybe you're an expert? are you an expert on the constitution and constitutional law? if so, i need you to show me something

No, and I’ve never claimed to be an expert and I don’t consider you one, either, just a man with an opinion.

 

[Nordberg]

Okay, so? The preamble is just a general statement about what the constitution is for. It isn't law, it isn't legal standing to use to create law. That comes in what follows, not the preamble. It's like a forward or introduction to a book, not the contents of the book itself.

It is part of the Constitution. https://www.conlaw.org/cites2.htm

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It is part of the Constitution. https://www.conlaw.org/cites2.htm

So? That doesn't change what I stated.

 

[Nordberg]

that's about what I expected from someone who only trusts 'experts'............maybe you're an expert? are you an expert on the constitution and constitutional law? if so, i need you to show me something

Experts? It is written in plain English. It resists Trumpism. You should read it.