When the Constitution was trashed and how we may never recover.

Flash said:
That was under Great Britain and was a justification of declaring independence. It has never been used as a source of authority for any legal action by the U. S. It is a statement of philosophy.

Maybe you can cite the court cases or actions based on the "legal authority" of the Declaration.
Click to expand...

it comes within the framework of the Constitution. we the people created a government with few and limited prescribed powers, based upon what we the people decided independence grants us. it's all about context. you act as if the framers fought a war for freedom and then created our jailers with the constitution.
 
Flash said:
I was just citing the opinions of Thomas, Alito, and Scalia. I guess they are morons.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Your opinion on who are morons or not has nothing to do with this conversation. Bulverism fallacy.
Flash said:
The Supreme Court establishes the law that governs us.
Click to expand...
WRONG. The Supreme Court has no authority to write any law or change the Constitution.
Flash said:
If you believe in the rule of law you follow their decisions whether you agree or not.
Click to expand...
WRONG. The Supreme Court is not an oligarchy.
Flash said:
Obviously, my information on this issue is not nearly as low as yours.
Click to expand...
It's lower...much lower.
Flash said:
You deny over 200 years of constitutional history
Click to expand...
The Constitution is not history. The Constitution is a document that exists today.
Flash said:
because you don't like the opinions.
Click to expand...
No court has authority to change or interpret any constitution. Only the owners of a constitution have that authority.
 
Flash said:
I was just citing the opinions of Thomas, Alito, and Scalia. I guess they are morons.
Click to expand...
for the most part, yes. don't ever forget that they are part of the government entity we the people sought to restrict

Flash said:
The Supreme Court establishes the law that governs us. If you believe in the rule of law you follow their decisions whether you agree or not.
Click to expand...
CONGRESS establishes the law that governs us. SCOTUS decides if that law comports within the framework of the established powers of congress.
If SCOTUS decides that abortion is murder, are you going to agree with them?

Flash said:
Obviously, my information on this issue is not nearly as low as yours. You deny over 200 years of constitutional history because you don't like the opinions.
Click to expand...
history throughout the world shows that government always attempts to impede upon liberty. the founders had first hand experience with this. why do you discount them?
 
BidenPresident said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Read that again...and again...and again...until you find the word 'right of the people' in it.

I have already discussed the two related rights laid out in the 2nd amendment. I have also already discussed how rights do not come from a constitution or any other piece of paper. Argument of the stone fallacy. Argument by repetition fallacy.

You are chanting.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
You're one of those low information morons who believes that the constitution was written on Mount Sinai.
Click to expand...

Since i'm not a religious christian, I wouldn't know what you're talking about, however, the framers wrote that Constitution with first hand experience of how government and standing armies impede and trample liberty. that is why it is paramount and MUST be read with a bias towards liberty
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it comes within the framework of the Constitution. we the people created a government with few and limited prescribed powers, based upon what we the people decided independence grants us. it's all about context. you act as if the framers fought a war for freedom and then created our jailers with the constitution.
Click to expand...

The Articles of Confederation would more fit the framework created by the Declaration by having a very weak central government with most powers remaining in the colonies. The Constitution altered that framework by giving several powers to the central government not contained in the Articles.

Many saw this as a betrayal and illegal because the function of the constitutional convention was only to "revise" the Articles and not write a new constitution. Also, the Articles required a unanimous vote to make any changes and the Constitution only required 9 votes for ratification.

So, if there are only 48 states as you claim because states disobeyed their own constitutions, the U. S. Constitution never went into effect because it disobeyed the Articles. Right--both are farfetched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top