Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[Flash]

Unconstitutionally. They had to change the Constitution in order to arrive at that particular ruling. SCOTUS does not have the authority to change the Constitution.

Ah, so you recognize court interpretations change the meaning of the Constitution (you just don't like it).

They did not change the Constitution, it was changed by the 14th Amendment.

 

[gfm7175]

I wonder what part of “ignore” an illiterate dumbfuck does not understand?

Ahhhhh, back to the anger again... Why are you so angry, Gomer??

Obviously, the "ignore" button isn't working for you, since you can still see my comments popping up whenever someone else quotes them, and that's really bothering you, isn't it?? Making you quite angry, isn't it?? ...

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR... Gomer MAD!!!! Gomer SMASH!!!!!

 

[gfm7175]

Well, at least you're laughing hysterically now instead of being in a violent rage of anger... That's a good start... maybe...

 

[Flash]

You've completely lost context here. I've never asserted that the 1st Amendment restricted the States; YOU are the one who asserted that, and asserts that again in a little bit here. I've simply directed you to the clear cut language of the 1st Amendment which specifically addresses Congress. Congress is NOT the States.

I know. You said it only restricted Congress. I agreed you are right until 1925 when the court made it applicable to the states. You are misinterpreting the wording of the Constitution. When it says "Congress" in the first amendment that same phrase was meant (and did) apply to all the rights (1-8). You can't just go by the literal words of the Constitution, you have to understand the intent of all those involved who all understood the entire Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government because it was only the power of the newly created central government that some feared. The framers did not think those amendments were necessary.

 

[gfm7175]

^Invisible shitstain.

You put me on ignore, yet you STILL insist on getting the last word in... Interesting...

 

[gfm7175]

But you both chose to leave out the same provisions of the Constitution such as the words "unreasonable" searches and misinterpreted that to mean all searches without a warrant are illegal and neither knowing about incorporation.

No, you simply have a strange obsession with the word "unreasonable" and fail to comprehend the 4th Amendment as it is written...

There was no "incorporation"...

 

[Flash]

No, you simply have a strange obsession with the word "unreasonable" and fail to comprehend the 4th Amendment as it is written...

There was no "incorporation"...

I only chose "unreasonable" because it is an easy example to illustrate why a person cannot simply read the Constitution and understand how it applies to everyday events; instead, it must be interpreted by the courts. My strange obsession with "unreasonable" is met by your obsession with fallacies.

For example, even you admit that police can search with consent and do not need a warrant. You claim that is not a "search" but the main point is that it is not an "unreasonable" search and therefore does not require a warrant.

What if your spouse gives consent to search the bedroom you share together and find evidence of a crime you committed? Is that a constitutional search?

 

[Into the Night]

We thought you were the same person because we didn't think two people would not know searches can be made without a warrant or not know about incorporation.

No, you thought that because domer76 told you.

Searches cannot be made without a warrant. There is no such thing as 'incorporation'. The 1st amendment does not apply to the States. The 2nd through 9th do. They've always been that way. Courts cannot change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

The thought of our two user names being attached to the same person really burns your grits, don't it Gomer?

We aren't the same person, of course, since we live half way across the country from each other, are at much different stages of our lives, and have different hobbies/interests, but don't let our vastly different identities get in the way of your beautiful mind...

They both take the US Constitution literally... They MUST be the same person!

Personally, I'm convince that domer76 and StonebyStone are the same person. They make the same arguments when they make them. They use the same insults.

 

[Into the Night]

Nor can he offer up a direct response to what I say about him now. I'm perfectly fine with that.

The funny part is that he can still see our comments whenever someone else quotes our comments, so even "ignoring" us doesn't completely remove our comments from his sight. We still stay rent free in his head, all the while he has made it harder on himself to directly respond to us. His loss...

Quite true. Personally, I find the 'ignore' feature on this forum quite useless. It's more an inconvenience than anything else. I don't put anybody on my Ignore list. I'd rather play with their weak minds, a hobby you have recently discovered.

 

[Into the Night]

True, I guess having the same misunderstanding of the Constitution fooled me.

No, domer76 fooled you. You actually believed him!

 

[Into the Night]

I don't know it perfectly by any means, but I do know it quite well. YOU, on the other hand, don't know it at all it seems...

And good for you for actually reading the thing. Flash's problem is a common one these days. Living in a world of sound bites and Google. It tends to take away context of what they think they know because of the way it partitions knowledge. It tends to take away memory.

This kind of thing has happened before, with the coming of the printed page and the book. Before that time, people used the memory for everything. They had incredible memory. The book removed the need for a lot of that, and that kind of memory retention became something foreign, that you had to specifically train for.

The Web is like the Book part 2. Those who have never known anything else tend to have their memories partitioned, removing context. Everything becomes a sound bite. You can see it here with Flash quoting only parts of amendments he is making arguments about, and never connecting them to anything inside the Articles of the Constitution. To him, they are separate and distinct, as if they never affect each other at all. History too, becomes a string of sound bites. You can see this too in the way he fixates on just a few court cases, often taking them out of context, to try to support his argument.

You've completely lost context here.

No, he hasn't. He made a compositional error, but he is still retaining a certain amount of context. Fortunately, the class involved wasn't people.

I've never asserted that the 1st Amendment restricted the States;

I consider this a typo on his part. Probably out his own anger. He has consistently tried to argue against our contention that the 1st amendment applies only to the federal government. Give him a break here.

I've simply directed you to the clear cut language of the 1st Amendment which specifically addresses Congress. Congress is NOT the States.

He DOES seem to have trouble with this particular concept.

If you don't know this case you know nothing about the Bill of Rights.

Your conclusion doesn't follow.

Actually, it sort of does. This is not a non-sequitur fallacy. It is a false authority fallacy. He is contending that a court has the authority to change the 1st amendment of the Constitution. He also for some reason has the idea in his head that we are contending that the 2nd through 9th amendments do not apply to the States, when they clearly do and always have.

 

[Into the Night]

But you both chose to leave out the same provisions of the Constitution such as the words "unreasonable" searches and misinterpreted that to mean all searches without a warrant are illegal and neither knowing about incorporation.

Of course we did. The 4th amendment specifies that a warrant is required for searches. The court issuing that warrant determines what is reasonable. That is not interpreting the Constitution. I have already told you why 'incorporation' never took place, not in 1961, not in any other year. The domain of each amendment remains unchanged. No court has the authority to change that. That is changing the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Ah, so you recognize court interpretations change the meaning of the Constitution (you just don't like it).

No, he recognizes (correctly) that a court making such a ruling is breaking the law.

They did not change the Constitution, it was changed by the 14th Amendment.

It was not changed by the 14th amendment, assuming it to be ratified. Indeed, there is some question as to whether the 14th amendment was ever ratified, considering it was done under duress.

 

[Into the Night]

I only chose "unreasonable" because it is an easy example to illustrate why a person cannot simply read the Constitution and understand how it applies to everyday events;

No, you chose the 4th amendment because it has the word 'unreasonable' in it, and you feel that this word somehow magickally gives the courts authority to change the Constitution.

instead, it must be interpreted by the courts.

The 4th amendment specifies that. Interpreting 'reasonable' is NOT interpreting the Constitution.

My strange obsession with "unreasonable" is met by your obsession with fallacies.

If you make invalid arguments, we are going to call you on them. Stop making invalid arguments. You can easily try to make your point without resorting to invalid arguments.

 

[Flash]

If you make invalid arguments, we are going to call you on them. Stop making invalid arguments. You can easily try to make your point without resorting to invalid arguments.

My arguments are only invalid in your imaginary world of constitutional law. None of my comments have expressed my opinion but established constitutional law.
By claiming the courts made "unconstitutional" rulings you are saying you get to decide what the Constitution means and the courts have no authority.

Claiming your interpretation is the only correct one does not make it so and has no authority. Constitutional interpretation is made by the courts. So, in the real world police can search without a warrant in specified circumstances and the 1st amendment restricts the states and these principles guide government action daily and your bizzaro interpretations mean nothing except as a way to take up space on message boards.

 

[domer76]

^A real Constitutional ass kicking!

 

[rjhenn]

But there is nothing to prevent that illegal act giving Congress and the president power to abuse their powers. That makes the Constitution meaningless if any branch is unlimited in its actions.



You are about 100 years behind in your constitutional law and seem completely unaware of the incorporation (nationalization process) which made most (not all) of the rights in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. Therefore, rights such as free speech restrict the states as well as the federal government. Excessive fines and bails was just incorporated in 2019.

This despite clear wording of most Amendments. The first was clearly intended to only apply to the federal government. The rest, including the 2nd, were clearly written to apply to all levels of government.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Into the Night]

My arguments are only invalid in your imaginary world of constitutional law.

No, they are invalid by structure, irregardless of their intended content. The Constitution is not imaginary. It is there for anyone to read. You might try doing so.

None of my comments have expressed my opinion but established constitutional law.

Lie. Most of your comments have expressed your opinion that courts are above the law, are capable of making law, and capable of changing the constitution arbitrarily.

By claiming the courts made "unconstitutional" rulings you are saying you get to decide what the Constitution means and the courts have no authority.

No. I am saying the States collectively decide what the Constitution means. The courts have NO say whatsoever. The States own the Constitution of the United States, not me, not you, not the courts, not the federal government created by that document, the States.

Claiming your interpretation is the only correct one does not make it so and has no authority.

Another attempt by you to reject plain English text.

Constitutional interpretation is made by the courts.

WRONG. The courts are NOT an oligarchy! They do NOT have any authority to change the Constitution of the United States!

So, in the real world police can search without a warrant in specified circumstances

Void argument fallacy.

and the 1st amendment restricts the states

WRONG. The 1st amendment clearly refers ONLY to Congress (the federal government).

and these principles guide government action daily

Government actions today routinely violate the Constitution. This is my point.

and your bizzaro interpretations mean nothing except as a way to take up space on message boards.

Not my interpretation. This is plain text, written in English, right there in the Constitution itself. No court can just change it or edit it arbitrarily as you are suggesting.

 

[gfm7175]

Personally, I'm convince that domer76 and StonebyStone are the same person. They make the same arguments when they make them. They use the same insults.

Let's just say that it wouldn't surprise me if they indeed were.

StonebyStone is quite an accurate user name though, since that's how he builds a lot of his arguments...