Wisconsin Supreme Court hands Democrats huge win with ballot box decision

[IBDaMann]

Yeah, they had every investigator, every election official, every SOS, every prosecutor in their back pocket.

Derp

Nope. Derp.

 

[ZenMode]

Read the Constitution. It is plainly written. The States OWN the Constitution of the United States. They created it. Only they can change it. Only they can destroy it (and thus dissolve the federal government). Only they can interpret any gray area. No court has ANY authority over any constitution. No court can change it. No court can interpret it.

Trying to convince yourself against yourself, Void?

Trying to convince yourself against yourself, Void?

Election fraud by Democrats is a continuing problem. It has been for many decades. In 2020, it was sufficient to cause that election cycle to fault.
It also occurred in the 2022 election, resulting in several of those elections to fault as well. You cannot make the evidence of election fraud by Democrats disappear, no matter what you try to tell yourself.

Democrats are playing a dangerous game. Further, several (including Biden) are dumb enough to call for civil war.

The Covid virus is real. The Covid Hoax was by DEMOCRATS in an effort to destroy the economy (which it largely did), to make Trump look bad. That act started the current economic depression. Democrats will stop at NOTHING. They will kill to achieve their objectives.

The Democrat part is a conspiracy. It is no theory.

If no court can interpret it, how is constitutionality determined?

 

[IBDaMann]

Thanks? How would you go about determining if a particular law or action is constitutional without some entity to interpret its meaning?

We've been over this. The Constitution is read, not interpreted, and if the law or action runs counter to what the Constitution reads, then the law or actions is unconstitutional.

I won't be allowing the hijacking of the word "interpret" to mean "understand what I'm reading in plain English." As you are using it, "interpret" ends up meaning "legislate from the bench" and not only is that completely unconstitutional but I understand why you are trying to legitimize it.

Using correct wording, a court tries a case and decides whether a law or action runs counter to the Constitution as written.

 

[ZenMode]

We've been over this. The Constitution is read, not interpreted, and if the law or action runs counter to what the Constitution reads, then the law or actions is unconstitutional.

I won't be allowing the hijacking of the word "interpret" to mean "understand what I'm reading in plain English." As you are using it, "interpret" ends up meaning "legislate from the bench" and not only is that completely unconstitutional but I understand why you are trying to legitimize it.

Using correct wording, a court tries a case and decides whether a law or action runs counter to the Constitution as written.

Right....so, back to Sanitytown...

We already know that 330 million can ALL read the same thing and interpret it differently.

So, when that happens, and it will, who decides what is constitutional?

 

[Into the Night]

If no court can interpret it, how is constitutionality determined?

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Right....so, back to Sanitytown...

We already know that 330 million can ALL read the same thing and interpret it differently.

So, when that happens, and it will, who decides what is constitutional?

RQAA

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA

Nope. Try again.

2nd Amendment:

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.

• What does it mean to be regulated? Does regulated mean that there are background checks? Does regulated mean that there has to be some kind of heirarchy running this militia?
• What does it mean to say it's "well" regulated? Who's definition of "well"? Mine? Yours? His? Hers? The governor? "Oh, well, we'll just look up 'well' in the dictionary!" Who's dictionary? Websters? Collins dictionary? Cambridge dictionary? Maybe dictionary.com?
• What year of dictionary are we going to use to establish a definition? Is "well organized" today that same as "well organized" 100 years ago?
• Which arms? Can I own a rocket launcher? Can I own weaponized drones? Can I own a fighter jet? How about a nuke?
• What is "infringing"? Can we not disallow violent criminals from owning guns? What about kids? Can a 5 year old walk into a gun store and buy a gun if he has the money? If he can't, are his rights being infringed on?

You are setting new records for ridiculousness. Holy crap.

Go ahead... pretend you answered those questions and post your even more retarded "RQAA".

 

[IBDaMann]

Right....so, back to Sanitytown...

We can't go "back" to where we are at present.

We already know that 330 million can ALL read the same thing and interpret it differently.

Nope.

So, when that happens, and it will, who decides what is constitutional?

You should have just opened with the statement "IBDaMann, my understanding of the US legal system is piss poor and I'm begging you to teach me ... all of it."

When there is a case, the two sides present their arguments and supporting existing law, which includes common law and precedent. The supporting existing law is read, and not somehow interpreted into any other language or code, in the plain, every-day English in which all law is written as the determinant of the decision.

I know, I know, ... you are desperate to have "interpret" mean "to understand" ... but it doesn't. All law is written in plain English and is easily understood without any need for any interpretation of any kind.

 

[ZenMode]

We can't go "back" to where we are at present.


Nope.


You should have just opened with the statement "IBDaMann, my understanding of the US legal system is piss poor and I'm begging you to teach me ... all of it."

When there is a case, the two sides present their arguments and supporting existing law, which includes common law and precedent. The supporting existing law is read, and not somehow interpreted into any other language or code, in the plain, every-day English in which all law is written as the determinant of the decision.

I know, I know, ... you are desperate to have "interpret" mean "to understand" ... but it doesn't. All law is written in plain English and is easily understood without any need for any interpretation of any kind.

LOL... Yes, just reading the law is going to fix everything.

Am I in an alternate universe? Am I on candid camera? Am I being Punk'd?

Seriously... this simply can NOT be a serious conversation?

As I find myself saying repeatedly.... I'm going to need more palms and more face to continue reading yours and Into the Night's posts.

 

[IBDaMann]

• What does it mean to be regulated? Does regulated mean that there are background checks? Does regulated mean that there has to be some kind of heirarchy running this militia?
• What does it mean to say it's "well" regulated? Who's definition of "well"? Mine? Yours? His? Hers? The governor? "Oh, well, we'll just look up 'well' in the dictionary!" Who's dictionary? Websters? Collins dictionary? Cambridge dictionary? Maybe dictionary.com?
• What year of dictionary are we going to use to establish a definition? Is "well organized" today that same as "well organized" 100 years ago?
• Which arms? Can I own a rocket launcher? Can I own weaponized drones? Can I own a fighter jet? How about a nuke?
• What is "infringing"? Can we not disallow violent criminals from owning guns? What about kids? Can a 5 year old walk into a gun store and buy a gun if he has the money? If he can't, are his rights being infringed on?

ZenMode Error. All you did was ask questions without making any point. As such, your questions are random questions that need not be answered.

First, make some sort of point (which might be to refute a previously made point by someone else) and then ask questions that probe on that point.

Until then, my recommendation to Into the Night is that he ignore your random, pointless questions.

 

[ZenMode]

ZenMode Error. All you did was ask questions without making any point. As such, your questions are random questions that need not be answered.

First, make some sort of point (which might be to refute a previously made point by someone else) and then ask questions that probe on that point.

Until then, my recommendation to Into the Night is that he ignore your random, pointless questions.

"All you did was ask questions without making any point. As such, your questions are random questions that need not be answered."

No shit I asked questions! These are questions that are asked EVERY time a gun law gets to court and is determined to be Constitutional or unConstitutional!

Hooooooooooooooooly shit! How the fuck do you function in life?

 

[IBDaMann]

LOL... Yes, just reading the law is going to fix everything.

LOL, just reading my post will go a long way to overcoming your confusion.

Am I in an alternate universe? Am I on candid camera? Am I being Punk'd?

The sad part is that you did it to yourself.

Seriously... this simply can NOT be a serious conversation?

... and there's nothing I can do to obligate you to be honest.

 

[IBDaMann]

No shit I asked questions!

No shit. You didn't make any point.

How do you function in life?

 

[ZenMode]

No shit. You didn't make any point.

How do you function in life?

Again.... EVERY time a gun law gets to SCOTUS to determine constitutionality, there are questions JUST LIKE MINE that are asked. Do you seriously think that just reading the short words of the 2nd amendment over and over and over and over and over and over will magically result in the true "meaning" floating down from the heavens into our brains?

What
In
The
Actual
Fuck
Is
Happening?

 

[IBDaMann]

Again.... EVERY time a gun law gets to SCOTUS to determine constitutionality, there are questions

Nope.

I wish you would read my posts.

EVERY time a CASE reaches the Supreme Court, there are zero questions submitted. There are always two sides who present arguments and supporting law. Clarification questions may be asked by the court of the arguments, but the court's questions do not get to reach beyond the presented arguments.

JUST LIKE MINE that are asked.

Nope. No random questions are permitted.

The existing law decides the case.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope.

I wish you would read my posts.

EVERY time a CASE reaches the Supreme Court, there are zero questions submitted. There are always two sides who present arguments and supporting law. Clarification questions may be asked by the court of the arguments, but the court's questions do not get to reach beyond the presented arguments.


Nope. No random questions are permitted.

The existing law decides the case.

The questions are what the justices ask themselves or the lawyers to better understand the case. Going back to the very first 2nd amendment or 1st amendment case, they have to interpret what the words mean. What did they mean when they were written. What do they mean now. Do you really think they listen to the lawyers present their case and then go back to their chamber and read the 2nd amendment over and over and over and over until a decision magically floats down from space?

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. Try again.

2nd Amendment:

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.

• What does it mean to be regulated?

It means an army. Regular soldiers. This is how a government, whether it's a State government or the federal government carries out it's inherent right of self defense.

• Does regulated mean that there are background checks?

It means an army.

• Does regulated mean that there has to be some kind of heirarchy running this militia?

Yes. The government.

• What does it mean to say it's "well" regulated? Who's definition of "well"? Mine? Yours? His? Hers? The governor?

The governor is Commander in Chief of a State militia. The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the federal militia.

• "Oh, well, we'll just look up 'well' in the dictionary!" Who's dictionary? Websters? Collins dictionary? Cambridge dictionary? Maybe dictionary.com?

No dictionary defines any word.

• What year of dictionary are we going to use to establish a definition? Is "well organized" today that same as "well organized" 100 years ago?

No dictionary defines any word.

• Which arms?

'Arms' is a weapon. Any weapon.

• Can I own a rocket launcher?

Yes.

• Can I own weaponized drones?

Yes.

• Can I own a fighter jet?

Yes.

• How about a nuke?

Yes.

• What is "infringing"?

To limit.

• Can we not disallow violent criminals from owning guns?

You can't stop it.

• What about kids?

Kids own guns.

• Can a 5 year old walk into a gun store and buy a gun if he has the money? If he can't, are his rights being infringed on?

Since he is not of age yet, that is up to his parents.

Rights do not come from a constitution. That is not it's purpose.

You are setting new records for ridiculousness. Holy crap.

No, YOU are. Infringement is ANY infringement. No special pleading will help you here. The right of self defense is inherent. It is absolute.

I have, but not to you yet. Now that I have, do not ask any of these questions again.

 

[ZenMode]

It means an army. Regular soldiers. This is how a government, whether it's a State government or the federal government carries out it's inherent right of self defense.

It means an army.

Yes. The government.

The governor is Commander in Chief of a State militia. The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the federal militia.

No. I asked for what "well" means in the context of a militia. The federal army is well regulated. If you are going to tell me that the state militia is also well regulated, then clearly the word well has no meaning at all. Tell me how you define well that both the federal and state militaries are regulated as such.

No dictionary defines any word.

No dictionary defines any word.

That's fine because, according to you, we all inherently and magically agree on the meaning of all words, written in any order, in any context. No need to define anything. The definitions just magically float down from space and we alllll agree!

'Arms' is a weapon. Any weapon.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Why do you get to define "arms"? What if I don't agree? Where did you get your definition and why is less valid than mine? You better not use a dictionary, you fucking psycho!

To limit.

You can't stop it.

Kids own guns.

I didn't ask if kids own guns. I asked if a kid, if he had the money, can walk into a gun shop and buy a gun. Sounds like an infringement on someone's right if he can't.

Since he is not of age yet, that is up to his parents.

Rights only apply at a certain age? The second amendment says nothing about age and I've been sitting here reading it over and over and over and over.

Rights do not come from a constitution. That is not it's purpose.

No, YOU are. Infringement is ANY infringement. No special pleading will help you here. The right of self defense is inherent. It is absolute.

Unless the government establishes an age restriction... despite there being nothing about age in the 2nd amendment. #FacePalm

I have, but not to you yet. Now that I have, do not ask any of these questions again.

Questions? Why would I ask questions. I've read the wording of 2A 39 times. I have no questions

 

[IBDaMann]

The questions are what the justices ask themselves or the lawyers to better understand the case.

Incorrect. The Jutices only get to ask questions that are directly related to the arguments being made, for clarification purposes. The Justices don't get to argue either side of the case. No Justice gets to blurt out "Do you really need 30-round magazines to hunt?" No, your generic, unrelated questions do NOT get asked by any Justices, and those who are arguing the separate sides of the case make arguments, they don't ask the Justices questions (except for rhetorical ones, which end up being declarative statements supporting the argument being made).

Going back to the very first 2nd amendment or 1st amendment case, they have to interpret what the words mean.

Nope. No interpretation. Ever.

Let me know when we have Justices who only understand Mandarin and need interpreters to read the Constitution to them.

What did they mean when they were written.

Nope. You are still trying to hijack the word "interpret" to mean "understand." Let me know when the Constitution ceases to be written in plain English.

Do you really think they listen to the lawyers present their case and then go back to their chamber and read the 2nd amendment over and over and over and over until a decision magically floats down from space?

Nope. They listen to the lawyers present the case and then they use existing law as the basis for their respective decisions.

 

[ZenMode]

Incorrect. The Jutices only get to ask questions that are directly related to the arguments being made, for clarification purposes. The Justices don't get to argue either side of the case. No Justice gets to blurt out "Do you really need 30-round magazines to hunt?" No, your generic, unrelated questions do NOT get asked by any Justices, and those who are arguing the separate sides of the case make arguments, they don't ask the Justices questions (except for rhetorical ones, which end up being declarative statements supporting the argument being made).


Nope. No interpretation. Ever.

Let me know when we have Justices who only understand Mandarin and need interpreters to read the Constitution to them.


Nope. You are still trying to hijack the word "interpret" to mean "understand." Let me know when the Constitution ceases to be written in plain English.


Nope. They listen to the lawyers present the case and then they use existing law as the basis for their respective decisions.

"They listen to the lawyers present the case and then they use existing law as the basis for their respective decisions."

First of all, they don't use just existing law. They also read what the Constitution says, interpret its meaning and make a ruling. See current ruling about Trump and immunity which was almost entirely uncharted territory.

Second, I'm not playing word games. You and Tin Foil II can try and make this an argument about semantics, but I'm not participating.