HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!

[Into the Night]

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.

...deleted Wikipedia Holy Link on sight...

neither act superseded the constitution........which was about the right of every turd to have a gun.....

You just can't seem to maintain any kind of context, can you? Neither militia act prevents the State from forming a militia to defend itself, or prevents an individual to defend himself using the weapon of his choice.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

The judicial system does not have authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Did Congress have the power to require states to expand Medicare and purchase insurance policies?

No.

If not, how is that policy changed?

It hasn't.

It is not a criminal issue and would never come before a jury for anybody to nullify.

It is already being nullified. It is collapsing from its own weight.

 

[Into the Night]

Both were passed by Congress.. Do you know how that works?

Non-sequitur fallacy.

 

[Flash]

No.

It hasn't.

It is already being nullified. It is collapsing from its own weight.

Yes it has changed. The Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to require the states to expand the Medicaid system and several states have not done so. Under your system that policy would still exist because there would be no authority to strike down an unconstitutional action.

Jury Nullification has nothing to do with the system collapsing. Jury nullification can do nothing to stop Congress from passing unconstitutional legislation--only the courts perform that function.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Read the history of militias I posted for you.

why?.......it is irrelevant to what we are discussing.......

 

[Into the Night]

No they didn't.. Read the damned history of militias. The founding fathers were not idiots.. They didn't have a standing army because they were such a young country. Unregulated militias were unmanageable and undependable even when it came to public safety and mutual defense.

Firearms were essential in colonial America for many reasons other than fearing or fighting the government.

A militia is the citizens. A State militia is the citizens of that State. Get a clue.

 

[Flash]

The judicial system does not have authority to change the Constitution.

99% of the legal and judicial profession plus constitutional scholars disagree with you and obviously their view has prevailed.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope, you sat on your ass and handed it all over lock, stock and barrel to concentrated corporate wealth and power.

Nope. They have no authority outside the markeplace. People buy their products. If people stop buying their products, they are gone. You can stuff your bigotry about 'evil corporations' into the Marxist garbage you so love.

 

[Into the Night]

In England and Ireland and Holland?

You are unteachable.. and of course your buzzword is "revisionism".. Idiots.

It is not a buzzword. You are attempting to revise history by denying it. 'Revisionism' has a meaning.

 

[Into the Night]

what the hell are you babbling about here?
what does that have to do with confiscation attempts in the american colonies?

This is a normal pattern for a liberal that is losing an argument. They start switching contexts, bring up strawmen, throw insults, or just chant repetitive arguments.

 

[Into the Night]

EVERY visitor to the US is under US jurisdiction.. No foreign laws apply in the US.

You are stupid... Education failed you completely.

You have already made this argument. It has already been answered. Chanting doesn't make it True.

 

[Into the Night]

You need to read Marbury v. Madison.

You don't think cases striking down laws against state mandated segregation, bi-racial marriage, sodomy, abortion, gay marriage, refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, refusing to act against one's religious views, government mandated religious actions, etc. changed or interpreted the Constitution? They certainly reversed how the law was applied.

No court has authority to change or interpret the Constitution. The 1st amendment does not apply to the States. It doesn't give the federal government the power to declare a State religion either, such as imposing recognition of a gay marriage upon all States.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes it has changed. The Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to require the states to expand the Medicaid system and several states have not done so.

Fine. They agreed with the States.

Under your system that policy would still exist because there would be no authority to strike down an unconstitutional action.

They do have authority to strike down an unconstitutional law. They do NOT have authority to interpret or change the constitution itself.

Jury Nullification has nothing to do with the system collapsing.

Yes it does. People and States voted with their wallets.

Jury nullification can do nothing to stop Congress from passing unconstitutional legislation

True, but it can prevent that legislation from having any authority of law.

--only the courts perform that function.

...and if they refuse?

 

[Into the Night]

99% of the legal and judicial profession plus constitutional scholars disagree with you and obviously their view has prevailed.

Argument from randU. You are reduced to making up numbers now. That's a fallacy, dude.

 

[domer76]

A militia is the citizens. A State militia is the citizens of that State. Get a clue.

To “bear arms” was used in a military context. Just as the militia was.

There’s your fucking clue, moron.

 

[domer76]

No court has authority to change or interpret the Constitution. The 1st amendment does not apply to the States. It doesn't give the federal government the power to declare a State religion either, such as imposing recognition of a gay marriage upon all States.

^The ignorance and stupidity of this idiot is astounding.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

No court has authority to change or interpret the Constitution. The 1st amendment does not apply to the States. It doesn't give the federal government the power to declare a State religion either, such as imposing recognition of a gay marriage upon all States.

I heard somewhere that Melania got her green card in 2001, then her citizenship in March of 2006, didn’t say what day of the month. Baron was born March 20, 2006.

Then I heard that Ivana, the mother of Don Sr.’s advisory adult children, became a citizen in 1988. Don Jr. was born in 1977, Ivanka was born in 1981, Erik was born in 1984; all born after their mother became a citizen.

Who knows.

 

[Flash]

No court has authority to change or interpret the Constitution. The 1st amendment does not apply to the States. It doesn't give the federal government the power to declare a State religion either, such as imposing recognition of a gay marriage upon all States.

But the courts have done and continue to do all those things you claim they cannot do. The men who wrote the Constitution did not seem to object to the court's decision in Marbury which gave it the power to interpret the Constitution.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Nope. They have no authority outside the markeplace. People buy their products. If people stop buying their products, they are gone. You can stuff your bigotry about 'evil corporations' into the Marxist garbage you so love.

Revisit the Powell Memorandum and the stats on the divorce in the early 1970s of increases in productivity of the american worker and worker compensation. There has indeed been a vast redistribution of wealth in this shithole society, and you advocate more of the same.