How to replace Judial Review

[kaz]

You tossed out some crackpottery, let's be clear about that.

I'll take your answer to be your concession that based on your view of the Constitution, there is no right to bear arms,

in reality, because there is no constitutional mechanism in place to assure that protection when it's threatened by unconstitutional laws.

Which conflicts with what you said awhile ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8058077-post1826.html

You're babbling nonsense. I never said any of that crap you're making up. In fact you quote me saying the 2nd is valid. The only one who said it's not is you. If you say things that I said, I'd be glad to stand behind them. You're saying things I didn't say and didn't mean. There's something seriously wrong with you.

You can't protect the 2nd amendment without judicial review. You oppose judicial review. You claim the Supreme Court never had that right, never had the right to assume that right.

Actually I addressed that in the op. In fact, the whole op is about the subject of having States and not the Federal Government limit Federal powers. This whole thread is about how to better protect individual freedoms. You're a completely useless poster. You're just a troll. Here is my advice to myself and everyone else regarding you.

 

[bendog]

The fact is, as I’ve documented, that judicial review was practiced in Colonial America prior to the advent of the Foundation Era, that judicial review was a part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition for centuries...

Can you cite an example where the top judicial venue in the Amercan colonies invalidated a law because it ran afoul of the English constitution, a colonial charter, a state constitution, the articles of Confederation or the US constitution, prior to Marbury?
Case and date, please.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2040&context=facpub

 

[bendog]

You're babbling nonsense. I never said any of that crap you're making up. In fact you quote me saying the 2nd is valid. The only one who said it's not is you. If you say things that I said, I'd be glad to stand behind them. You're saying things I didn't say and didn't mean. There's something seriously wrong with you.

You can't protect the 2nd amendment without judicial review. You oppose judicial review. You claim the Supreme Court never had that right, never had the right to assume that right.

Actually I addressed that in the op. In fact, the whole op is about the subject of having States and not the Federal Government limit Federal powers. This whole thread is about how to better protect individual freedoms. You're a completely useless poster. You're just a troll. Here is my advice to myself and everyone else regarding you.

In essense, aren't you arguing for nullification?

 

[kaz]

You can't protect the 2nd amendment without judicial review. You oppose judicial review. You claim the Supreme Court never had that right, never had the right to assume that right.

Actually I addressed that in the op. In fact, the whole op is about the subject of having States and not the Federal Government limit Federal powers. This whole thread is about how to better protect individual freedoms. You're a completely useless poster. You're just a troll. Here is my advice to myself and everyone else regarding you.

In essense, aren't you arguing for nullification?

No, read the op.

 

[bendog]

Actually I addressed that in the op. In fact, the whole op is about the subject of having States and not the Federal Government limit Federal powers. This whole thread is about how to better protect individual freedoms. You're a completely useless poster. You're just a troll. Here is my advice to myself and everyone else regarding you.

In essense, aren't you arguing for nullification?

No, read the op.

oh that's right. You fell for the Kochs' crap about the 17th. Nevermind.

 

[kaz]

In essense, aren't you arguing for nullification?

No, read the op.

oh that's right. You fell for the Kochs' crap about the 17th. Nevermind.

And you're sucking Obama's dick, asshole.

What a stupid post. Read the op, moron, it answers your question.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thomas DiLorenzo is. It's not like he's made a secret of it.

(wonder why you chose not to attribute his words to your post. Hmmm.)

I've never heard of him, but it's interesting that you instantly knew who he was....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Another "we've got to do something to stop Obama" thread.

Do you use psychotropic drugs?

 

[paperview]

Thomas DiLorenzo is. It's not like he's made a secret of it.

(wonder why you chose not to attribute his words to your post. Hmmm.)

I've never heard of him, but it's interesting that you instantly knew who he was....

Do a search of my name with his name as a key word. I've known of him for years through my Civil War discussions, and his overreaching neo-confederate garbage, spewed by Lincoln haters and White Supremacists that love to point to the economist as a historian and quote his revisionism extensively.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Looked up Thomas DiLorenzo, and I remember him now. So, he is NOT and has never been a "white supremest." He was a scapegoat that the filthy left used to demagogue against Ron Paul with. The race hate group SPLC engaged in slander and libel against DiLorenzo.

Thank you Paperview, for reminding us of what fucking scum and lying piles of shit leftists are. What filth the democrats are with their war on anyone who holds views contrary to the party or is even associated with someone marked as an enemy of the party.

And you fuckers impugn Joe McCarthy.... Think if McCarthy had EVER pulled the kind of shit you leftists pulled on DiLorenzo.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That Uncensored2008 uses filth to ad hom decent posters and then praises McCarthy informs the knowledgeable American what a lying punk ass he is.

 

[paperview]

Champion DiLorenzo as your hero all you like.

Call me names all you like. Deny his associations all you like.

Being insulted by the likes Uncensored2008 is to be garlanded with lilies.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Champion DiLorenzo as your hero all you like.

Call me names all you like. Deny his associations all you like.

Being insulted by the likes Uncensored2008 is to be garlanded with lilies.

No one called him a "hero," he is a victim of the filthy demagogues of the left, the most shameful scumbags on the planet.

{"I don't endorse what they say and do any more than I endorse what Congress says and does because I spoke at a hearing on Wednesday."[32] In a LewRockwell.com column, he described his association with the League as limited to "a few lectures on the economics of the Civil War" he gave to The League of the South Institute about thirteen years ago.[33] In a 2005 LewRockwell.com article, DiLorenzo examined the League's social and political views, concluding that it "advocates peace and prosperity in the tradition of a George Washington or a Thomas Jefferson".[34]}

Thomas DiLorenzo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leftists are gutter scum. They are a festering cancer in this nation. Those who engage in the tactics of Josef Goebbels should be condemned -as I condemn you here - every time they engage in this filthy and shameful behavior.

 

[Contumacious]

Case and language, please.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

.

A guy who doesn't think the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review keeps citing court cases, i.e., examples of judicial review,

to support his arguments.

Priceless.

Pay attention ding dong, I have already shown historical facts showing that they have the authority.

What bothers me , and should bother you, is when they AMEND the Constitutional without showing either (a) that the acts are specifically enumerated or (b) that such was the intent of the lawmakers.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Thomas DiLorenzo is. It's not like he's made a secret of it.

(wonder why you chose not to attribute his words to your post. Hmmm.)

I've never heard of him, but it's interesting that you instantly knew who he was....

Do a search of my name with his name as a key word. I've known of him for years through my Civil War discussions, and his overreaching neo-confederate garbage, spewed by Lincoln haters and White Supremacists that love to point to the economist as a historian and quote his revisionism extensively.

Again BULLSHIT.

All his articles are supported by historical facts.

Merely because you want to revise history to show that Ape Lincoln was a saint does not mean that DiLorenzo is a racist.

.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again BULLSHIT.

All his articles are supported by historical facts.

Merely because you want to revise history to show that Ape Lincoln was a saint does not mean that DiLorenzo is a racist.

.

.

This is what the left does; they cannot argue substance. They have no ideas, no solutions, no substance. The left can ONLY smear through libel, slander, and innuendo.

DiLorenzo is no racist, much less a "supremest." BUT because he was associated with Ron Paul, the scumbags of the left launched as campaign of slander against him, to use him as a weapon to slander Ron Paul.

This whole thing disgusts and enrages me. The left are such filthy scum, I am ashamed that they are Americans.

 

[paperview]

I've never heard of him, but it's interesting that you instantly knew who he was....

Do a search of my name with his name as a key word. I've known of him for years through my Civil War discussions, and his overreaching neo-confederate garbage, spewed by Lincoln haters and White Supremacists that love to point to the economist as a historian and quote his revisionism extensively.

Again BULLSHIT.

All his articles are supported by historical facts.

Merely because you want to revise history to show that Ape Lincoln was a saint does not mean that DiLorenzo is a racist.

.

.

^ I rest my case.

 

[Contumacious]

Do a search of my name with his name as a key word. I've known of him for years through my Civil War discussions, and his overreaching neo-confederate garbage, spewed by Lincoln haters and White Supremacists that love to point to the economist as a historian and quote his revisionism extensively.

Again BULLSHIT.

All his articles are supported by historical facts.

Merely because you want to revise history to show that Ape Lincoln was a saint does not mean that DiLorenzo is a racist.

.

.

^ I rest my case.

rest......naw....you meant to say I VOLUNTARILY DISMISS MY "CASE"

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

^ I rest my case.

You don't have a case to rest, Herr Goebbels.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't protect the 2nd amendment without judicial review. You oppose judicial review. You claim the Supreme Court never had that right, never had the right to assume that right.

Actually I addressed that in the op. In fact, the whole op is about the subject of having States and not the Federal Government limit Federal powers. This whole thread is about how to better protect individual freedoms. You're a completely useless poster. You're just a troll. Here is my advice to myself and everyone else regarding you.

In essense, aren't you arguing for nullification?

He's arguing for a system that would make it more likely conservatives controlled judicial review.