That obviously means they cannot infringe on my liberty to use drugs, have an abortion, refuse to provide any education to my children, engage in polygamy or any other liberties I choose to exercise as part of my pursuit of happiness.
The constitution - A lesson and debate
- Thread starter Truth Detector
- Start date
That obviously means they cannot infringe on my liberty to use drugs, have an abortion, refuse to provide any education to my children, engage in polygamy or any other liberties I choose to exercise as part of my pursuit of happiness.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
whoever taught you the constitution and civics should be shot, so should you for that matter. you have it all ass backwards. It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe the framers would create a new government with written limitations, only to hand over the power to define those limits to the government they just created.
You must have missed the part about checks and balances in the Constitution. Thinking the people get to interpret the Constitution destroys the entire concept of a written document if it could be overturned by public opinion.
The Constitution as misinterpreted by the SmarterthanYou, IntotheNight, IBDMANN, GFM7175 school of thought is contrary to every real interpretation by those who have authority to make those decisions.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you must have missed the part about who wrote the constitution. It is the height of stupidity to believe the framers would create a limited government, only to hand over the power to define those limits to that government.
That is correct Constitutionally. But the state police apparatus certainly can. You're not very smart or educated.
This is the dumbest argument I have seen. You're not very smart or educated are you?
That is correct Constitutionally. But the state police apparatus certainly can. You're not very smart or educated.
I'm educated enough to know the state apparatus has been limited through the incorporation process that makes most of the rights in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states restricting their power to infringe on my 1st Amendment rights. You are about 100 years behind on your constitutional education. Check out the 14th Amendment which prohibits the states from infringing on due process or equal protection.
You have been making these same ignorant claims again and again which everybody else knows are outdated except your JPP buddies which make the same claims. Coincidence?
No matter how many times you claim the courts cannot interpret the Constitution, it still does not make it true.
This is the dumbest argument I have seen. You're not very smart or educated are you?
You are the one whose knowledge of the Constitution comes from some idiot. But, I should know anybody who believes Trump's claims of election fraud is likely to believe any source that is fake.
gib•ber•ish (ˈdʒɪb ər ɪʃ, ˈgɪb-)
n.
1. meaningless or unintelligible talk or writing; nonsense.
2. talk or writing containing many obscure, pretentious, or technical words.
straw man
noun
1: a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
So John Adams and Thomas Jefferson are some idiot? Wow!
flail (flāl)
n.
To wave or swing vigorously; thrash: flailed my arms to get their attention.
To move vigorously or erratically; thrash about: arms flailing helplessly in the water.
To strike or lash out violently
Unlike triggered leftist snowflakes, I am not concerned about what Trump has to say about the election. Unlike you, I actually do my own research and read books on the topic.
The lack of curiosity on the part of mindless minions who beat their tiny fists on the table demanding that the election was perfect, raise concerns as to why they are so determined to shut down debate about that election.
For instance, I find it very difficult to believe that an incompetent, unaccomplished, senile 79 year old racist could win with 80 million votes, bettering Obama by 15,367,303 votes.
I find it very difficult to believe that Trump, garnering 74,222,958 votes, who beat his first election victory by 11,237,852 votes and which beat a much more popular Obama by 8,307,163 votes and who had massive, enthusiastic crowds at his events, could lose an election by 7,060,140 votes.
I find it difficult to believe that an election turnout for Obama was 57.1% and 9.2% lower than this election at 66.3%.
I find it difficult to believe that Republicans INCREASED their House presence by 13 seats in the last election, yet Trump lost by such a large margin to an incompetent, unaccomplished, senile 79 year old racist.
Claiming that Trump lost because everyone hates him just doesn't hold any water in rational debate.
Of course, if you are an unthinking, willing lemming, you will parrot the malarkey the media feeds you fed to them by the DNC. The typical response to these questions are "SHUT UP!" and "CONSPIRACY!!"
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
You are wrong, it is. Your right to carry for defense doesn't emanate from the Second.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Wrong.
No...it IS about the Militia, that's why the Founders used the word "Militia."
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the 2nd Amendment is not about the militia, nor is it about the right to carry. that pre-exists the constitution. The 2nd Amendment tells the federal government that they have zero authority over the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
You're wrong again. The Second is SPECIFICALLY about the Militia.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
wrong, history failure
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
I know I'm going to regret asking this but why do you think it's not about the Militia?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the historical writings and commentaries of the framers. go read them
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
I have. Your right to carry for self-defense does not emanate from the Second Amendment.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I never said that it does. I simply said that the 2nd Amendment is not about the militia
No it is not. But you cling to that delusional bullshit if it helps you to sleep at night.