There is no tape of the senate approving 2020 election. why not?

[Guno צְבִי]

Argument by repetition fallacy (chanting). Argument of the Stone fallacy. RQAA.

And yet you sit in your trailer pecking away on your keyboard trying to seem Intelligent

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

No. Federal law is supreme over state law (where the federal government has authority). But it has agencies responsible for enforcing those laws. State and local government have no obligation to enforce those laws. Local police have no responsibility to check for immigration violations although most cities agree to hold violators for the feds if they have a warrant.

if there's a law.

so what about sactuary cities, where there definitely is a law.

i question this supremacy in light of on the ground facts.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

AssHatZombie, Flash didn't particularly agree or disagree with my posts, He posted a fact, enforcing federal law is not the states, but rather the federal government's responsibility.

What cities and what laws are you referring to? Was what you're complaining of occurring during only Democratic or only Republican administrations, or were they all not enforcing federal law?

I've been concerned because its taken the U.S. Department of Justice a year and a half to charge anyone for their involvement with the seditious besieging of those in the capitol building. The department of justice wasn't diligently enforcing federal law, I understand that it takes longer to make a conspiracy case, but IMO, suspected rioters being federally indicted for lesser crimes related to the Capitol Building riot, should also have been charged with sedition.

Note that I never posted the word prevails, I posted that federal law takes legal precedent over state laws. Respectfully, Supposn

he says state dont have to enforce federal laws..

is that what you were saying?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Into the Night, I don't believe you've answered my question. You posted a logical explanation and provide credible links or facts to support AssHatZombie's contentions? If you did so, you should be able to find and quote your own post. Respectfully, Supposn

what is my contention?

 

[Supposn]

Post #183.

Into the Night, I requested the precise words of the constitution of the clauses you refer to be quoted and it should be explained as to why those words take precedent over the 2nd clause of the U.S. Constitution's article 6 which I've quoted in previous posts.

(Later in another post , I quoted the clause broken up into 2 separate paragraphs, ““This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”.
I broke up to clause so its final sentence is more conspicuous.

Your response is “... However, fixating on Article VI is ignoring Articles I, II, II, IV, and V and all the amendments of the Constitution. You can't just pick out one piece and discard the rest, dude. Go read them. I will not quote the entire Constitution here. Pay particular attention to Articles I and III, $8 and $9, the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments”.

I don't perceive anything there that could in any manner override, or take precedent, or modify the meaning of article six's entire second clause. But if you would quote those words and walk me through the logic of your contention, I'm open to persuasion.

Bear in mind the U.S. Supreme Court's the absolute final determiners of what is or isn't constitutional. Anything they determine is unconstitutional cannot be U.S. Government's treaty, or law, or regulation,or any other species of a U.S. Contract or pact.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Into the Night]

And yet you sit in your trailer pecking away on your keyboard trying to seem Intelligent

Insult fallacy. Bigotry. No argument presented. Trolling.

 

[Into the Night]

Into the Night, I requested the precise words of the constitution of the clauses you refer to be quoted and it should be explained as to why those words take precedent over the 2nd clause of the U.S. Constitution's article 6 which I've quoted in previous posts.

(Later in another post , I quoted the clause broken up into 2 separate paragraphs, ““This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”.
I broke up to clause so its final sentence is more conspicuous.

Your response is “... However, fixating on Article VI is ignoring Articles I, II, II, IV, and V and all the amendments of the Constitution. You can't just pick out one piece and discard the rest, dude. Go read them. I will not quote the entire Constitution here. Pay particular attention to Articles I and III, $8 and $9, the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments”.

I don't perceive anything there that could in any manner override, or take precedent, or modify the meaning of article six's entire second clause. But if you would quote those words and walk me through the logic of your contention, I'm open to persuasion.

Bear in mind the U.S. Supreme Court's the absolute final determiners of what is or isn't constitutional. Anything they determine is unconstitutional cannot be U.S. Government's treaty, or law, or regulation,or any other species of a U.S. Contract or pact.
Respectfully, Supposn

RQAA. I'm not going to quote the entire Constitution for you here. Go read it yourself.
No court has authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

 

[Flash]

if there's a law.

so what about sactuary cities, where there definitely is a law.

i question this supremacy in light of on the ground facts.

What law are you talking about? If it is federal law it is their responsibility to enforce it, not the state or city. The federal government cannot mandate what state/local law enforcement must do.

Originally background checks for gun purchases were to be checked by local sheriffs department but the Supreme Court ruled federal law could not require that.

 

[Supposn]

RQAA. I'm not going to quote the entire Constitution for you here. Go read it yourself.
No court has authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

Into the Night, and yet the interpretation of United State's Constitution and treaties, and our federal Laws and regulations, as they apply to court cases being argued or appealed in courts is essentially the primary, (if not the only) function of the U.S. Supreme court.

Other than yourself, did anyone else state, or imply, or consider the possibility of any court having the authority to change the U.S. Constitution? Where did you get that foolish idea?

I never asked anyone to post a transcript of the entire U.S. Constitution.
But I did respond to you by posting, ... if you would quote those words [that you consider to in any manner override, or take precedent, or modify the meaning of article six's entire second clause,] and walk me through the logic of your contention, I'm open to persuasion.

Bear in mind the U.S. Supreme Court's the absolute final determiners of what is or isn't constitutional. Anything they determine is unconstitutional cannot be U.S. Government's treaty, or law, or regulation, or any other species of a U.S. Contract or pact.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

What law are you talking about? If it is federal law it is their responsibility to enforce it, not the state or city. The federal government cannot mandate what state/local law enforcement must do.

Originally background checks for gun purchases were to be checked by local sheriffs department but the Supreme Court ruled federal law could not require that.

what law are you talking about?

 

[Into the Night]

What law are you talking about? If it is federal law it is their responsibility to enforce it, not the state or city.

WRONG. States (and cities within them) are REQUIRED to enforce certain federal laws.

The federal government cannot mandate what state/local law enforcement must do.

The Constitution mandates it, dumbass.

Originally background checks for gun purchases were to be checked by local sheriffs department but the Supreme Court ruled federal law could not require that.

Background checks for gun purchases are unconstitutional.

 

[Into the Night]

Into the Night, and yet the interpretation of United State's Constitution and treaties, and our federal Laws and regulations, as they apply to court cases being argued or appealed in courts is essentially the primary, (if not the only) function of the U.S. Supreme court.

WRONG. The Supreme Court has NO authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

Other than yourself, did anyone else state, or imply, or consider the possibility of any court having the authority to change the U.S. Constitution? Where did you get that foolish idea?

You. Some others carry this mistaken idea as well, such as Flash.

I never asked anyone to post a transcript of the entire U.S. Constitution.
But I did respond to you by posting, ... if you would quote those words [that you consider to in any manner override, or take precedent, or modify the meaning of article six's entire second clause,] and walk me through the logic of your contention, I'm open to persuasion.

RQAA.

Bear in mind the U.S. Supreme Court's the absolute final determiners of what is or isn't constitutional.

The Supreme Court has NO authority to interpret the Constitution.

Anything they determine is unconstitutional cannot be U.S. Government's treaty, or law, or regulation, or any other species of a U.S. Contract or pact.
Respectfully, Supposn

They do not determine it. They have no authority to determine it. They have NO authority to interpret the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

what law are you talking about?

Flash is trying to say any law. It is the same problem that Supposn has. Both of them are trying to place the Supreme Court above the Constitution, effectively making it an oligarchy.

 

[Port Tack]

And if it's too "dangerous" to tape,

it's too dangerous to vote.

Election rules were changed unconstitutionally.
The result should be set aside prima facie.
Deep state strong armed the senate on 1/6 into approving the mess without debating objections or actually voting.
There is no tape of the vote.

Who gives a flying fuck. Only fucking morons think that is anything but a formality. The American voter made the decision who is president and he is in the Whitehouse now.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Who gives a flying fuck. Only fucking morons think that is anything but a formality. The American voter made the decision who is president and he is in the Whitehouse now.

it's not a formality.

its the process.


the actual voting on things by the proper legislatures is "just a formality".

you hate democracy.

a formality is me offering your meemaw a handkerchief after she blows me.

 

[Supposn]

Flash is trying to say any law. It is the same problem that Supposn has. Both of them are trying to place the Supreme Court above the Constitution, effectively making it an oligarchy.

Into the Night, you and others have posted our U.S. Constitution explicitly, or our federal law in some manner REQUIRES our states or local governments to enforce federal laws. I and others have responded by posting that one, (as some others) of your contentions are not true.

The U.S. Supreme court's function is to interpret USA's federal and states' constitutions and behaviors, agreements, laws, or regulations, as they're related to questions brought before federal courts for decisions, trials, or appeals, or any other questions brought before that court.

No one but you has mentioned the concept of any court being "above" the U.S. Constitution or changing that constitution. Where did you get that foolish idea? Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Into the Night]

Who gives a flying fuck. Only fucking morons think that is anything but a formality. The American voter made the decision who is president and he is in the Whitehouse now.

The President is not elected by popular vote.

Biden was not elected.

 

[Into the Night]

Into the Night, you and others have posted our U.S. Constitution explicitly, or our federal law in some manner REQUIRES our states or local governments to enforce federal laws. I and others have responded by posting that one, (as some others) of your contentions are not true.

So? That only shows you have never read the Constitution of the United States nor any State constitution.

The U.S. Supreme court's function is to interpret USA's federal and states' constitutions

The Supreme Court does NOT have any authority to interpret or change any constitution.

and behaviors,

A constitution is not a 'behavior'.

agreements, laws, or regulations, as they're related to questions brought before federal courts for decisions, trials, or appeals, or any other questions brought before that court.

No court has authority to interpret or change any constitution.

No one but you has mentioned the concept of any court being "above" the U.S. Constitution or changing that constitution.
Where did you get that foolish idea? Respectfully, Supposn

YOU HAVE tried to place the court above the Constitution. YOU HAVE attempted to justify a court's ability to change a constitution. The idea is coming from YOU. Denying your own argument forms a paradox. Irrational.

 

[Port Tack]

it's not a formality.

its the process.


the actual voting on things by the proper legislatures is "just a formality".

you hate democracy.

a formality is me offering your meemaw a handkerchief after she blows me.

No, you are as fucking stupid as Trump. Even though certification did happen regardless of whether or not you can find a tape of it, Biden would still be president today even if they had hung Pence on Jan 6, it WAS just a formality. You are an idiot if you think if trumps asshole had prevented certification that he would still be president, he would not.

 

[Port Tack]

So? That only shows you have never read the Constitution of the United States nor any State constitution.

The Supreme Court does NOT have any authority to interpret or change any constitution.

A constitution is not a 'behavior'.

No court has authority to interpret or change any constitution.

YOU HAVE tried to place the court above the Constitution. YOU HAVE attempted to justify a court's ability to change a constitution. The idea is coming from YOU. Denying your own argument forms a paradox. Irrational.

The supreme court most certainly has the authority to interpret the constitution, that"s their fucking job asshole.