The Bill of Rights is NOT negotiable.

Concart said:
Yes you have. You asserted that the Bill of Rights was 'not negotiable'. We showed you numerous examples of the Bill of Rights being subject to judicial review, and your response was simply to engage in ad hom attacks. Your premise was obliterated. You are just too dishonest to admit it. That's your problem. Why did you start the thread? I'd imagine so you could troll those who challenged you. Trolling seems to be your main purpose here.
Click to expand...

govdelegatepower.jpg
 
domer76 said:
The ban required gun locks. That’s what they overturned. But, you missed the rest of the majority opinion written by Scalia.

He said the ruling does not allow possession of any gun, any where at any time. That laws regulating manufacture and sale are constitutional. In other words, ‘infringed’, motherfucker. Comprendè?
Click to expand...

so the words 'shall not be infringed' compared to a pro government statist traitor like Scalia ruling it can be infringed.......and you see no problem with this? you fucking retard
 
LV426 said:
The Constitution is an evolving document. So applying originalist, 18th-century thinking to certain parts of it, but not to other parts of it, leads to inconsistency and incoherence.

Basically, you can't say that a certain part of the Constitution should be interpreted as it was in the 18th century, but a different part should be interpreted by today's standards.

Same thing with the Bible; Conservatives abuse the notions there too.

The Bible and the Constitution are the two documents Conservatives cite the most, but have never really fully read either.
Click to expand...

True, even Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase, just twelve years after ratification, abandoned his strict constructionist view of the Constitution
 
SmarterthanYou said:
amending the constitution is not evolution, moron. yes, it can be CHANGED/AMENDED.it does NOT EVOLVE...............
Click to expand...

Not about amending the Constitution, rather interpreting the Constitution, the Elastic Clause being just one example

The original Constitution was only four pages long, with a strict constructionist view the US would still be stuck in the 18th Century
 
archives said:
Not about amending the Constitution, rather interpreting the Constitution, the Elastic Clause being just one example

The original Constitution was only four pages long, with a strict constructionist view the US would still be stuck in the 18th Century
Click to expand...

the government was not made the final arbiter of the constitution, nor was it given the power to define the limits of their power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top