Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
... I'm pretty sure you're making that shit up. And if you're referring to the Windsor decision, that wasn't in 2009 and that wasn't thier findings. They found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.[sic]
Huh... So Kennedy didn't state this as the basis for the decision?
"DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage"
Two years later... 'the States be damned... Marriage is a Fundamental FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT!'
ROFL!
Both decisions were total fabrications with ABSOLUTELY NO KINSHIP with the US Constitution OR the principles set forth in the Charter of American Principle on which the Constitution rests ... these two decisions are; respectively... demonstrations of the unholy trinity of Left-think: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance. ABSOLUTE FRAUDULENCE which we're just suppose to accept because: The Supreme Court has the final say.
Conjuring Law from a vacuous, wholly subjective ideology... in reality, does not "law" make.
What's more, such deception; be it intentional or a function of delusion, strips the Court, and the Government it represents, of the consent to be governed, which rested entirely upon the objectivity intrinsic in the valid, sustainable government established by the Constitution.
But it is always SO COOL to have the Ideological Left drop by and work so EAGERLY to revise the last batch of SCOTUS GUFAWS, so as to hide the hysteria gushing from it's latest farce.
As usual, you're all over this thing Skylar!
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.
Windsor v. US
Hey... Would someone point to where the Constitution Guarantees the Right to Marry... or the Right to "Identify" as a sexual deviant, or the Right to interject homosexuality into institutions designed exclusively for sexuality as defined by the human physiological standard.
Have you read the 9th amendment?
YES! I have. Well let's check it out:
"Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Now... I don't see anything in that amendment which assures the right to promote degeneracy or marry anything one decides that it needs to marry. Do you?
If so please cite the specific portions where you feel such exists...
If Not... why did ya claim that there was?
Maybe you'd like to guess another Amendment? I've got 'em all...
Why do you keep wasting your time with Skylar the myopic moron. Every-time you kick her ass she's too concerned with winning to acknowledge her defeat. Why bother, she's going to back-stab and stroke her wanting ego either way.... I'm pretty sure you're making that shit up. And if you're referring to the Windsor decision, that wasn't in 2009 and that wasn't thier findings. They found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.[sic]
Huh... So Kennedy didn't state this as the basis for the decision?
"DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage"
Two years later... 'the States be damned... Marriage is a Fundamental FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT!'
ROFL!
Both decisions were total fabrications with ABSOLUTELY NO KINSHIP with the US Constitution OR the principles set forth in the Charter of American Principle on which the Constitution rests ... these two decisions are; respectively... demonstrations of the unholy trinity of Left-think: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance. ABSOLUTE FRAUDULENCE which we're just suppose to accept because: The Supreme Court has the final say.
Conjuring Law from a vacuous, wholly subjective ideology... in reality, does not "law" make.
What's more, such deception; be it intentional or a function of delusion, strips the Court, and the Government it represents, of the consent to be governed, which rested entirely upon the objectivity intrinsic in the valid, sustainable government established by the Constitution.
But it is always SO COOL to have the Ideological Left drop by and work so EAGERLY to revise the last batch of SCOTUS GUFAWS, so as to hide the hysteria gushing from it's latest farce.
As usual, you're all over this thing Skylar!
Why do you keep wasting your time with Skylar the myopic moron. Every-time you kick her ass she's too concerned with winning to acknowledge her defeat. Why bother, she's going to back-stab and stroke her wanting ego either way.... I'm pretty sure you're making that shit up. And if you're referring to the Windsor decision, that wasn't in 2009 and that wasn't thier findings. They found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.[sic]
Huh... So Kennedy didn't state this as the basis for the decision?
"DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage"
Two years later... 'the States be damned... Marriage is a Fundamental FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT!'
ROFL!
Both decisions were total fabrications with ABSOLUTELY NO KINSHIP with the US Constitution OR the principles set forth in the Charter of American Principle on which the Constitution rests ... these two decisions are; respectively... demonstrations of the unholy trinity of Left-think: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance. ABSOLUTE FRAUDULENCE which we're just suppose to accept because: The Supreme Court has the final say.
Conjuring Law from a vacuous, wholly subjective ideology... in reality, does not "law" make.
What's more, such deception; be it intentional or a function of delusion, strips the Court, and the Government it represents, of the consent to be governed, which rested entirely upon the objectivity intrinsic in the valid, sustainable government established by the Constitution.
But it is always SO COOL to have the Ideological Left drop by and work so EAGERLY to revise the last batch of SCOTUS GUFAWS, so as to hide the hysteria gushing from it's latest farce.
As usual, you're all over this thing Skylar!
The 9th amendment affirms reserve rights. Which are, by definition, unemunerated in the constitution.[sic]
Child abuse in Public Schools..
The failure of U.S. schools to protect students from sexual abuse by school personnel is a story of district cover-ups, lack of training, incomplete teacher background checks and little guidance from the U.S. Department of Education, according to a new federal report.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office said the nation’s K-12 schools lack a systemic approach to preventing and reporting educator sexual abuse of students, despite a problem that the report said affects an estimated 9.6 percent of students – nearly one in 10 – who are subjected to sexual misconduct by teachers, coaches, principals, bus drivers and other personnel during their K-12 career. That figure is from a 2004 report made to the U.S. Department of Education and is the most recent estimate available, according to the Government Accountability Office report released last week.
“Although states and school districts are taking some positive steps,” the report said, “current efforts are clearly not enough.”
Hampered by inadequate access to employee background information, school districts unwittingly hire teachers and staff accused of sexually abusing students in other districts and states, the report said. With little training on how to recognize early signs of predatory behavior, school employees don’t always pay attention to a colleague who is “grooming” a student for sexual abuse with inappropriate attention. And some school districts quietly dismiss teachers accused of potential child sexual abuse, without alerting future employers or seeking to revoke teaching credentials, the report said.
Schools failing to protect students from sexual abuse by school personnel federal report says EdSource
Laughing...Lumpy, I ran you off of your every claim.
Hey... Would someone point to where the Constitution Guarantees the Right to Marry... or the Right to "Identify" as a sexual deviant, or the Right to interject homosexuality into institutions designed exclusively for sexuality as defined by the human physiological standard.
Have you read the 9th amendment?
YES! I have. Well let's check it out:
"Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Now... I don't see anything in that amendment which assures the right to promote degeneracy or marry anything one decides that it needs to marry. Do you?
If so please cite the specific portions where you feel such exists...
If Not... why did ya claim that there was?
Maybe you'd like to guess another Amendment? I've got 'em all...
Do you not understand the words 'enumeration' or 'reserve rights'? Because you're still insisting that unless a right is enumerated, it doesn't exist.
The 9th amendment says exact opposite. There's a reason we don't cite you on constitutional issues. And this is one of the reasons.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The 9th amendment affirms reserve rights. Which are, by definition, unemunerated in the constitution.[sic]
OHhhhh.... So you feel that Rights are just shit you make up... and whenever the mood strikes and you feel that you've a right to do it, then just because your doing it injures others; 'Fuck them, that's their problem!'
ROFLMNAO!
Reader, there is literally nothing; and I mean NOT A SINGLE SENTENCE TO BE FOUND ANYWHERE in neither the US Constitution, nor in the Charter of American principles, or the prodigious writings of the Founding Fathers... which provides for a right, wherein; by the very exercise of that right, one infringes upon the means of another to exercise their own right.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
9th Amendment
Which is how we knew Kennedy; in Windsor... was as full of shit as Nancy Pelosi swimming in a bowl of shit. In that he simply declared, without the slightest effort to show sound basis, that 'States determine Marriage law and anyone who would write a federal law to protect the definition of marriage being applied by 90+% of the states is a BIGOT!, intentionally trying to harm the the good names of the ever so innocent, stuffing gerbils up their asses, children raping NAMBLA Homosexuals.'
You don't have the right, to vote on the rights of others, and you never have, or will. What votes were taken, by the people, all of them either way, were unconstitutional...Hey... Would someone point to where the Constitution Guarantees the Right to Marry... or the Right to "Identify" as a sexual deviant, or the Right to interject homosexuality into institutions designed exclusively for sexuality as defined by the human physiological standard.
Have you read the 9th amendment?
YES! I have. Well let's check it out:
"Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Now... I don't see anything in that amendment which assures the right to promote degeneracy or marry anything one decides that it needs to marry. Do you?
If so please cite the specific portions where you feel such exists...
If Not... why did ya claim that there was?
Maybe you'd like to guess another Amendment? I've got 'em all...
Do you not understand the words 'enumeration' or 'reserve rights'? Because you're still insisting that unless a right is enumerated, it doesn't exist.
The 9th amendment says exact opposite. There's a reason we don't cite you on constitutional issues. And this is one of the reasons.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
what don't you people get about this?
that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,”
It's sickening you people would GIVE up your right to vote on this and have a bunch of judges RULE over your votes. If you look back at California, they VOTED down homosexual marriage and then more judges walked in and nullified THEIR VOTES. don't you care you are giving up your say in how your country should run? and the supreme's don't have the RIGHT to nullify ANY STATES RIGHTS.
Is there a point to your post? Or is this just cut and paste Tourettes Syndrome?
The 9th amendment affirms reserve rights. Which are, by definition, unemunerated in the constitution.[sic]
OHhhhh.... So you feel that Rights are just shit you make up... and whenever the mood strikes and you feel that you've a right to do it, then just because your doing it injures others; 'Fuck them, that's their problem!'
ROFLMNAO!
And once again, you make the same mistake: you assume that a right need be enumerated to exist.
... I'm pretty sure you're making that shit up. And if you're referring to the Windsor decision, that wasn't in 2009 and that wasn't thier findings. They found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.[sic]
Is there a point to your post? Or is this just cut and paste Tourettes Syndrome?
Yes... the point was the demonstration of the Inability of ANY LEFTIST INSTITUTION TO BE IN POSSESSION OF ANY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO PRECLUDE IT FROM BEING CONVICTED OF EVERYTHING FROM INCOMPETENCE TO PEDOPHILIA... if there was ever an objective investigation and prosecution of such.
The 9th amendment affirms reserve rights. Which are, by definition, unemunerated in the constitution.[sic]
OHhhhh.... So you feel that Rights are just shit you make up... and whenever the mood strikes and you feel that you've a right to do it, then just because your doing it injures others; 'Fuck them, that's their problem!'
ROFLMNAO!
And once again, you make the same mistake: you assume that a right need be enumerated to exist.
Ok... Thanks.
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
... I'm pretty sure you're making that shit up. And if you're referring to the Windsor decision, that wasn't in 2009 and that wasn't thier findings. They found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.[sic]
Huh... So Kennedy didn't state this as the basis for the decision?
"DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage"
Two years later... 'the States be damned... Marriage is a Fundamental FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT!'
ROFL!
Both decisions were total fabrications with ABSOLUTELY NO KINSHIP with the US Constitution OR the principles set forth in the Charter of American Principle on which the Constitution rests ... these two decisions are; respectively... demonstrations of the unholy trinity of Left-think: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance. ABSOLUTE FRAUDULENCE which we're just suppose to accept because: The Supreme Court has the final say.
Conjuring Law from a vacuous, wholly subjective ideology... in reality, does not "law" make.
What's more, such deception; be it intentional or a function of delusion, strips the Court, and the Government it represents, of the consent to be governed, which rested entirely upon the objectivity intrinsic in the valid, sustainable government established by the Constitution.
But it is always SO COOL to have the Ideological Left drop by and work so EAGERLY to revise the last batch of SCOTUS GUFAWS, so as to hide the hysteria gushing from it's latest farce.
As usual, you're all over this thing Skylar!
Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.
Windsor v. US
You don't have the right, to vote on the rights of others, and you never have, or will.
You don't have the right, to vote on the rights of others, and you never have, or will.
So... 300 million people spread across a 4 million square miles can't determine the law of the land... but THE "DEMOCRATS"... are here to inform us that 9 people sitting in a 500 sq ft room in DC CAN!
And this despite the fraudulent assertion that such was the case. DOMA and the VAST MAJORITY of the State merely codified the STANDARDS OF MARRIAGE as that which nature designed, through its design of human physiology.
