Clarence Thomas vs George Floyd

[Rigby5]

by taking the child away from it's parents you are certainly restricting what the parents can and can not do with their child,

transitive verb

1
a
: to govern or direct according to rule
b(1)
: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2)
: to make regulations for or concerning
regulate the industries of a country
2
: to bring order, method, or uniformity to

Definition of REGULATE

to govern or direct according to rule; to bring under the control of law or constituted authority; to make regulations for or concerning… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Of course taking a child from an abusive family is restrictive.
Point is it is not regulating families, but restricting them.
And it is only justified from the fact abusive parents have no justification for their actions.
A pregnant woman has plenty of justification for an abortion, if she wants one.

And again, dictionaries are not a source of accuracy because they also have to contain all the popular misconceptions and abuses of words as well as their correct meaning.
The most common example of dictionary listings being wrong is the word "anti-Semitic".
Since the word "Semitic" means to be part of the Arab language group, then clearly "anti-Semitic" means anti Arab, NOT anti Jew, since Jews are only one small part of the group of people who have Arab origin languages.

 

[struth]

Of course taking a child from an abusive family is restrictive.
Point is it is not regulating families, but restricting them.
And it is only justified from the fact abusive parents have no justification for their actions.
A pregnant woman has plenty of justification for an abortion, if she wants one.

And again, dictionaries are not a source of accuracy because they also have to contain all the popular misconceptions and abuses of words as well as their correct meaning.
The most common example of dictionary listings being wrong is the word "anti-Semitic".
Since the word "Semitic" means to be part of the Arab language group, then clearly "anti-Semitic" means anti Arab, NOT anti Jew, since Jews are only one small part of the group of people who have Arab origin languages.

hahahah yeah we can use a dictionary to figure out how words are defined! hhahahahhah woiw you dembots are something else.

restrictions are a form of regulation.....we regulate traffic but restricting how fast people can go for example.

as far as a state regulating a medical procedure like abortion, if you feel a certain way, lobby your state legislature...you are free to do that.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Wrong.
Government is supposed to constrained to be within the will of the people, not to force idolatry on the people, based on what the wealthy elite want to push.

That is NOT how the system works.
That is how the system gets abused by the wealthy elite, who force their will on the majority, illegally.

The will of the people? The people's will elected Republican presidents who appointed conservative justices who overturned roe v Wade.

That is exactly the will of the people. As a constitutional Republic, the will of the majority takes a back seat to the will of the constitution, whose existence is meant to protect the minority from the will of the majority. Unfortunately in this case the will of the minority was implemented constitutionally.

Hopefully, eventually, we can turn around over 50 years of a conservative SCOTUS dominated court and implement changes you and I like, and if so I'll tell Repubs the same thing I'm telling you...

Our Constitutional Republic in action. Live with it.

 

[Rigby5]

I provided you with where in the Constitution the Congress gets it's power to regulate commerce.

transitive verb

1
a
: to govern or direct according to rule
b(1)
: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2)
: to make regulations for or concerning
regulate the industries of a country
2
: to bring order, method, or uniformity to

Definition of REGULATE

to govern or direct according to rule; to bring under the control of law or constituted authority; to make regulations for or concerning… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

It should be obvious to you that your view means that Congress can do what ever whim it wants to commerce, has to be false.
No government body ever has the authority to just force whatever it wants, in a democratic republic.

The ONLY source of legal authority in a democratic republic is the defense of individual inherent rights.
So then any restrictions on commerce are inherently illegal.
The point of the commerce clause was ONLY to facilitate commerce, NEVER to restrict it.
There is no legal means by which any body of government could ever restrict commerce.

 

[Rigby5]

hahahah you mean your "real meaning" - not how it's actually defined in the dictionary....funny how you dembots like to make up your own meanings to words

The Constitution clearly gives Cognress the power to regulate Commerce, and the Courts have upheld that includes regulating Drugs...https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/gonzalez-v-raich-2004

Gonzalez v. Raich (2004)​

The case eventually went to the Supreme Court. The Court upheld the Controlled Substances Act and affirmed Congress’s power to ban local use and cultivation of marijuana. The Court reasoned, “The exemption for cultivation by patients and caregivers can only increase the supply of marijuana in the California market.” Therefore, the Court argued, the “aggregate impact on the national market” would be “substantial,” and within Congress’s power to regulate.

The courts are often corrupt and wrong.
Prohibition, slavery, segregation, Dredd Scott, etc. being good examples.

 

[struth]

It should be obvious to you that your view means that Congress can do what ever whim it wants to commerce, has to be false.
No government body ever has the authority to just force whatever it wants, in a democratic republic.

The ONLY source of legal authority in a democratic republic is the defense of individual inherent rights.
So then any restrictions on commerce are inherently illegal.
The point of the commerce clause was ONLY to facilitate commerce, NEVER to restrict it.
There is no legal means by which any body of government could ever restrict commerce.

1) no there are certainly limits, it has to impact interstate Commerce.....for legislation to get passed, it has to have a majority in both chambers and signed the President....all are elected officials...so not sure what you mean by "force whatever it wants "

The source for legal authority in the United States, is the Constitution.....and the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, thus they have the power to restrict it.....that's why for example, I can't buy a machine gun from some guy in Oregon

 

[struth]

The courts are often corrupt and wrong.
Prohibition, slavery, segregation, Dredd Scott, etc. being good examples.

well, go challenge it, maybe it will get overturned like Dredd Scott.

 

[Rigby5]

hahahah yeah we can use a dictionary to figure out how words are defined! hhahahahhah woiw you dembots are something else.

restrictions are a form of regulation.....we regulate traffic but restricting how fast people can go for example.

as far as a state regulating a medical procedure like abortion, if you feel a certain way, lobby your state legislature...you are free to do that.

It is clearly illegal for government to meddle in private family or medical practices.
The legislators are practicing medicine without a license.

The point is rights are not up for majority rule.
No one else has the authority to dictate that which effects no one else.
Drug, booze, and abortion legislation are prime examples of criminal behavior by legislators.

 

[WEATHER53]

When a person decided to use drugs, it harms no one else so it is NOT a matter of safety at all.
But when government decides to criminalize drugs, that entices crime with high profits, greatly increases murder rates over turf wars and cash robberies, and it illegally tries to dictate personal choices.

Drug use harms more than just the user.
It destroys families
Ruins jobs and careers
To name but a few

You are true one track dummy

 

[JoeB131]

Should Clarence Thomas be honored with a statue? I mean George Floyd has at least one and he was only famous for being a criminal killed by police. Doesn't a black Supreme Court Justice deserve a statue more than George Floyd does? Or, is Clarence Thomas nothing but an Uncle Tom?

Clarance Thomas is an Uncle Tom.
When he finally does the world a favor and keels over, he isn't going to be remember for any brilliant legal decision.

He's going to be remembered because the GOP rammed through his nomination after he was accused of sexual harassment.

(For the record, I don't believe a word Anita Hill said.)

In a Tuesday 32-20 Georgia Senate vote, Republicans elected to erect a statue of Justice Thomas on the state Capitol grounds.

Will it be holding a Coke can with a pubic hair on it?

 

[Rigby5]

1) no there are certainly limits, it has to impact interstate Commerce.....for legislation to get passed, it has to have a majority in both chambers and signed the President....all are elected officials...so not sure what you mean by "force whatever it wants "

The source for legal authority in the United States, is the Constitution.....and the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, thus they have the power to restrict it.....that's why for example, I can't buy a machine gun from some guy in Oregon

Wrong.

First of all, things like executive order economic sanctions obviously deprive individuals of the property, without any compensation, so are totally illegal.

Second is that of course the Constitution can not possibly at all be the source of any legal authority.
First you need an inherent source of legal authority, like the defense of inherent individual rights, before you can legally authorize a rebellion or convene a Constitutional convention.
Read Jefferson's Declaration of Indepence.
It is quite clear that the defense of inherent individual rights is the ONLY legal source of any authority.
The Constitution is not even remotely a source of authority, because it had to be negotiated, modified, etc.
What the Constitution mostly is intended to do is divide jurisdictions between state and federal levels.
And much of that is arbitrary, so then is not at all inherent or a source of legal authority.

 

[Rigby5]

The will of the people? The people's will elected Republican presidents who appointed conservative justices who overturned roe v Wade.

That is exactly the will of the people. As a constitutional Republic, the will of the majority takes a back seat to the will of the constitution, whose existence is meant to protect the minority from the will of the majority. Unfortunately in this case the will of the minority was implemented constitutionally.

Hopefully, eventually, we can turn around over 50 years of a conservative SCOTUS dominated court and implement changes you and I like, and if so I'll tell Repubs the same thing I'm telling you...

Our Constitutional Republic in action. Live with it.

Wrong.
Polls show the majority did not want Roe vs Wade overturned, and it came about by SCOTUS candidates lying about their stand on Roe Vs Wade.

 

[Rigby5]

well, go challenge it, maybe it will get overturned like Dredd Scott.

Maybe it will take another civil war?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Women do not really have a choice about copulation, since it is an inherent biological drive.
That is like saying women can choose to not sleep or eat.

Men have a drive, too. Both know the potential consequences pre-copulation.

 

[struth]

It is clearly illegal for government to meddle in private family or medical practices.
The legislators are practicing medicine without a license.

The point is rights are not up for majority rule.
No one else has the authority to dictate that which effects no one else.
Drug, booze, and abortion legislation are prime examples of criminal behavior by legislators.

where is it clearly illegal for that? haha the legislatures make up the laws, they created the licencing practices

we aren't talking about rights....we are talking about regulating commerce.

 

[struth]

Maybe it will take another civil war?

I don't think people are going to join your cause to take up arms because they can't snort cocaine legally

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Well duh. That’s because government assistance is made for people who live in poverty. You can’t even get welfare if you aren’t in poverty.

If it weren’t for the programs you’re talking about, far more people would be impoverished.

Those programs incentivize poverty. Did you not see how difficult it was to get people to go back to work during Covid since the gov was giving out free money? That’s welfare mentality. Welfare is a culture.

 

[Rigby5]

Drug use harms more than just the user.
It destroys families
Ruins jobs and careers
To name but a few

You are true one track dummy

The net result of drug laws vs no drug laws is that it is better to NOT have any drug laws.
First of all, like with Prohibition, when you criminalize, it increases profits, entices, causes violence over turf and cash, etc.
Drug laws get in the way of medical treatment, which is the best solution.

I am not saying drugs are good, but that drug laws make thing astronomically even worse.

 

[struth]

Wrong.

First of all, things like executive order economic sanctions obviously deprive individuals of the property, without any compensation, so are totally illegal.

Second is that of course the Constitution can not possibly at all be the source of any legal authority.
First you need an inherent source of legal authority, like the defense of inherent individual rights, before you can legally authorize a rebellion or convene a Constitutional convention.
Read Jefferson's Declaration of Indepence.
It is quite clear that the defense of inherent individual rights is the ONLY legal source of any authority.
The Constitution is not even remotely a source of authority, because it had to be negotiated, modified, etc.
What the Constitution mostly is intended to do is divide jurisdictions between state and federal levels.
And much of that is arbitrary, so then is not at all inherent or a source of legal authority.

1) foreigners.....who aren't protected by our Constitution.
2) hahah the Constitution can't be the bases for legal authority? hahahhaahah
3) The Declaration of Independence is not any sort of legal authority...it's not law.
4) the Constitution creates the Federal Govt, and tells it what it can and can not do.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't think people are going to join your cause to take up arms because they can't snort cocaine legally

About half the people imprisoned in the US are over drug laws.
About 40 million people are illegally denied their right to vote due to drug convictions.