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

[Truck Fump / h1b]

A sanctuary city as you describe is not enforcing federal law. They are breaking it.

that what i thought.

 

[Supposn]

No court has authority to change the Constitution, dude.

Into the Night, you and AssHatZobie continue posting implications of U.S. Supreme Court actually having "changed", (i.e. modified) the U.S. Constitution. In fact that's never happened and no credible persons have ever stated otherwise. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

I'll pass judgement on my decisions.
Free thought and speech isn't nonsense

AssHatZombie, yes, we agree as you posted, “Free thought and speech”, [i.e. the 1st amendment] isn't nonsense”.

Your contentions of the Supreme Court “changing” the constitution is nonsense;
Your contentions of Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution you disagree with, are contrary to the Constitution because the court's decisions were made with (what in your opinion were) less than “good faith”;

I suppose there are some more of your contentions that are less than credible if not more nonsensible. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

AssHatZombie, yes, we agree as you posted, “Free thought and speech”, [i.e. the 1st amendment] isn't nonsense”.

Your contentions of the Supreme Court “changing” the constitution is nonsense;
Your contentions of Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution you disagree with, are contrary to the Constitution because the court's decisions were made with (what in your opinion were) less than “good faith”;
and I suppose there are some more of your contentions that are less than credible if not more nonsensible. Respectfully, Supposn

hallucinating rights into the constitution isn't changing the constitution.

it's just bad judges who suck at reading and may be insane technocrats.

 

[Into the Night]

Into the Night, you and AssHatZobie continue posting implications of U.S. Supreme Court actually having "changed", (i.e. modified) the U.S. Constitution. In fact that's never happened and no credible persons have ever stated otherwise. Respectfully, Supposn

Lie.
You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you.

Roe v Wade was such a modification. Now the Court has retracted it, they are again conforming to the Constitution on that point.

 

[Into the Night]

AssHatZombie, yes, we agree as you posted, “Free thought and speech”, [i.e. the 1st amendment] isn't nonsense”.

Not the first amendment. an inherent right. Rights do not come from a constitution. That is not their purpose.

Your contentions of the Supreme Court “changing” the constitution is nonsense;

...just a few examples...
Gibbons v Ogden changed the Constitution by giving Congress the authority create a national bank (nothing in the Constitution grants them this authority).
Schenk v United States changed the Constitution by granting Congress the authority to ban or limit speech.
Tinker v Des Moines changed the Constitution by expanding the 1st amendment beyond Congress.
Roe v Wade changed the Constitution by adding authority to regulate abortion. No such authority was ever granted by the Constitution. That decision was recently corrected.
U of Cal v Bakke changed the Constitution by removing the 14th amendment, and added authority to regulate education, which was never granted by the Constitution.
United States v Miller and United States v Warner changed the Constitution by removing the 2nd amendment.

Your contentions of Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution you disagree with, are contrary to the Constitution because the court's decisions were made with (what in your opinion were) less than “good faith”;

No. You cannot exceed your authority and make the Supreme Court an oligarchy 'in good faith'.

I suppose there are some more of your contentions that are less than credible if not more nonsensible. Respectfully, Supposn

Illiteracy: Double negative. Word games.

 

[Into the Night]

hallucinating rights into the constitution isn't changing the constitution.

it's just bad judges who suck at reading and may be insane technocrats.

Constitutions don't give rights. That is not their purpose.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

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.

There is no tape available of AssHat Zombie ever taking a dump.

This proves conclusively that AssHat is full of shit.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Constitutions don't give rights. That is not their purpose.

it at least lists them.

or you pick the verb, senor tedium.

 

[Into the Night]

it at least lists them.

or you pick the verb, senor tedium.

It lists some of them, but it does not provide them.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

It lists some of them, but it does not provide them.

oh it provides them.

 

[Into the Night]

oh it provides them.

No. Rights do not come from a piece of paper. It is obvious you don't know what a constitution is for or what it does.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

No. Rights do not come from a piece of paper. It is obvious you don't know what a constitution is for or what it does.

it clearly provides rights.

 

[Supposn]

Lie.
You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you.

Roe v Wade was such a modification. Now the Court has retracted it, they are again conforming to the Constitution on that point.

Into the Night, you don't understand our U.S. Supreme Court is the absolutely final determinator of what does or doesn't conform to the U.S. Constitution? Thus, the court always was, is, and will be in conformance to the U.S. Constitution. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Into the Night, you don't understand our U.S. Supreme Court is the absolutely final determinator of what does or doesn't conform to the U.S. Constitution? Thus, the court always was, is, and will be in conformance to the U.S. Constitution. Respectfully, Supposn

appeal to authority fallacy. argument deligitimized.

 

[Into the Night]

it clearly provides rights.

It does not provide any rights, though it discusses some of them.

 

[Into the Night]

Into the Night, you don't understand our U.S. Supreme Court is the absolutely final determinator of what does or doesn't conform to the U.S. Constitution? Thus, the court always was, is, and will be in conformance to the U.S. Constitution. Respectfully, Supposn

Lie. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

It does not provide any rights, though it discusses some of them.

and provides them.

 

[Into the Night]

and provides them.

It does not provide any rights, though it discusses some of them. Rights do not come from a piece of paper. You still don't know what a constitution does.