SmarterthanYou
rebel
there, there. it's all gonna be ok. the sooner you let go of your delusions of intelligence, the better off you'll be.
HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
there, there. it's all gonna be ok. the sooner you let go of your delusions of intelligence, the better off you'll be.
there, there. it's all gonna be ok. the sooner you let go of your delusions of intelligence, the better off you'll be.
I'd love to say, "Nice try"...but...you failed so completely, everyone would realize I was just being kind.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
awww, don't go away mad. just go away.
To be foolishly generous, this quoted assertion of yours is as "creative" as Trump's on the 14th Amendment.
So you think the courts don't have the authority to exercise their enumerated judicial powers, but President Trump does?! I sincerely wish you were only joking.
One obvious example:
There'd been a debate raging in the U.S. for centuries about the specific meaning of our 2nd Amendment.
- Did 2A apply only to "well regulated militia"? Would it only apply to paramilitary commanders with rank and command structures? OR !!
- Did 2A protect individual citizen rights.
Either way 2A is among the most poorly, ambiguously worded passages in our amended Constitution. And the reason prior assertions about the decision being up to individual citizens is, it's unworkable. If Bruce says it's not legal to carry his AR-15 down Main Street at noon on Saturday, but Julia says it's legal for her to carry her AR-15 down Main Street at noon on Saturday, police can't simply consult each citizen's opinion on how each law is to be interpreted.
That's what our law courts are for.
There are several useful, authoritative law resources online.
If you quote any of them, with link, that EXPLICITLY supports your claim, I may reconsider it. I'm confident you will not.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
If they didn't have a visa and just crossed, that is breaking the law. Just like overstaying a visa is against the law.
In a manner similar to Katzgar's situation. He told the mental asylum he would come back after the weekend. Lying bitch!
Funny coming from someone that accepted Eric Holder helping Obama break the law and violate the Constitution.
Keep kissing nigger ass, boy. 2nd class piece of shit.
I'm not going anywhere, boy. Wish all you want, but in the end, I'll be right here.
You claim you are smarter than I.
Okay...we'll see.
Stay alert, though, because you are in way over your head.
Hope you enjoy the schooling I'll be giving you. I know I will enjoy giving it.
Debate on the second is because it is vague and can be interpreted in different ways. Not so the 14th. Also no doubt that the prez does not have the ability to change the constitution via EOs.
True. We all know that people who have to lie and make up stuff to keep their followers in fear are pretty low
I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing.
But you raise a separate, different issue.
The false claim was that it's either the citizen, or the 10th Amendment, not the judicial branch that has the legal authority to interpret the Constitution. I refuted this.
Either way, it's the courts, not the citizen that designates the meaning of our Constitution. And sometimes it can be QUITE A STRETCH !!
“Well article 1 section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Beginning in the 1930's progressives used the commerce clause to claim that the government could do virtually anything it wished. It culminated in the case mentioned in the opening post to this thread, Wickard v. Filburn. In that case, Mr. Filburn had grown a few hundred bushels of wheat over his allotment in FDR's disasterous price fixing scheme. The wheat was entirely for Filburn's own consumption but the Supreme Court held that Filburn's fines were Constitutional because the wheat he grew for himself would otherwise have to be procured off of the open market and that affected interstate commerce.
After that there were practically no limits to the scope of government power.” Cincinnatus87
Right or wrong, our law courts, our judicial branch that has this authority. Thus the term "legislation from the bench".
SmarterthanYou
rebel
not even close to being true. EVERY SINGLE PERSON knew exactly what militia meant, who was in it, who had the right, and there was no vagueness to it.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
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.
A militia is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
no, it is not. A militia is a body of armed individuals that provide for the necessity of a free state, or a state of freedom. every founder, every colonist had first hand experience with the english trying to disarm them. the 2nd was written to prevent the new central government from ever having any power or control over the arms of the people.
No.. we have a standing army, navy, marine corps, air force, national guard .. we don't need vigilantes.
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.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
This post is hidden because Nordberg blows hobos.
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".
b) If it is available at all as you assert it is, it's an option of opportunity. For legal validity that's about as sure as raping a kidnap victim. Even if the perpetrator gets away with it that doesn't mean it's not a crime. So the law you're advocating here is the law of the jungle, might makes right. That plays no role in Constitutional law.
I invite you to quote with link any authoritative source that corroborates your claim. But you won't because you can't, because there isn't.
The Militia Act of 1903 repealed the Militia Act of 1792.. It was never about every turd with a gun starting his own militia.