It’s Constitutional

[jillian]

To paperview: Since you enjoy quoting America’s Founders here’s a few you might not care for. Lincoln is the hypocrite referred to in the opening:





To paperview: The Czar might have stayed in power had his people told the Communists that revolution was illegal. Ditto the people who supported governments overthrown by Communists.

After acquiring the power the Communists turned out to be more brutal, more murderous, more tyrannical than the people they replaced AND IT WAS LEGAL BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WAS.

Constitutional or not will matter little when the American people have had enough of the Communists. The only thing that bothers me is knowing that the Communists will get a fairer shake than they ever gave anyone else. Were it up to Samuel Adams they would suffer death.

What in the holy fuck are you talking about?

Stupid Ron Paul videobots

Ron Paul is stupid because he likes freedom from central government?? THis was Jefferson's exact position!!! What planet have you been on??

no. ron paul is stupid because he doesn't know anything.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What in the holy fuck are you talking about?

Stupid Ron Paul videobots

Ron Paul is stupid because he likes freedom from central government?? THis was Jefferson's exact position!!! What planet have you been on??

no. ron paul is stupid because he doesn't know anything.

dear, do you have a reason to feel that way?? Are you really such a stupid stupid dangerous liberal that you don't know a reason is necessary??

 

[idb]

why not give your best example of this or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to do so??



too stupid but 100% liberal. I asked for your best example of a conservative lie and you use an example that less than 1% of conservatives believe. Does that mean you're slow, so very very slow??

Here's a best example of a substantive liberal lie. Do you have any idea what best or substantive mean???

The rich don't pay their fair share when the top1% pay 40% of all federal taxes and more than any other country on earth.

See why we are 100% ppositve a liberal will be slow, so very very slow.

I see you have successfully mounted wheels on those goalposts.

what?????????????

You asked him for an example of a Conservative lie, he gave you one (well, several actually) but it didn't meet your secret criteria.
That's called 'moving the goalposts'.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I see you have successfully mounted wheels on those goalposts.

what?????????????

You asked him for an example of a Conservative lie, he gave you one (well, several actually) but it didn't meet your secret criteria.
That's called 'moving the goalposts'.

too stupid but perfectly liberal. I asked him for his best (singular) example of a conservative lie. His best was, Obama is a Kenyan. When less than 1% of conservatives believe it and it is a trivial topic it can't be considered a best example, except of pure liberal ignorance.

I countered with a truly significant liberal lie, namely, Obozo won based on very significant lie that the top 1% don't pay their fair share. Sorry.

See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow??

 

[jillian]

Ron Paul is stupid because he likes freedom from central government?? THis was Jefferson's exact position!!! What planet have you been on??

no. ron paul is stupid because he doesn't know anything.

dear, do you have a reason to feel that way?? Are you really such a stupid stupid dangerous liberal that you don't know a reason is necessary??

why are you calling me dear?

do i know you?

i'm neither stupid nor dangerous. but i do know he's naive and ignorant about foreign affairs and nothing he's ever said about the constitution or government is anything that would have been taught in any law school

now you on the other hand are absolutely so stupid that you're dangerous. but luckily there aren't enough randian idiots in this country to really matter.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

but i do know he's naive and ignorant about foreign affairs .

do you have an example or are you too stupid to know you need an example. Dear, name calling is not enough. You have to support what you say. Why are you here if you are not old enough to know you need a reason???

See why we are 100% a liberal will be slow??? What other conclusion is possible???

 

[idb]

what?????????????

You asked him for an example of a Conservative lie, he gave you one (well, several actually) but it didn't meet your secret criteria.
That's called 'moving the goalposts'.

too stupid but perfectly liberal. I asked him for his best (singular) example of a conservative lie. His best was, Obama is a Kenyan. When less than 1% of conservatives believe it and it is a trivial topic it can't be considered a best example, except of pure liberal ignorance.

I countered with a truly significant liberal lie, namely, Obozo won based on very significant lie that the top 1% don't pay their fair share. Sorry.

See why we are 100% positve a liberal will be slow??

Too stupid, but pedantry is the last refuge in a losing argument isn't it?

You asked for his best example of a conservative lie.
That one's a worthy submission.
It doesn't matter how many believe it, it was a conservative lie according to him.
If you have parameters that the suggested lie must meet, you should state them at the outset.

Did anyone ask you for a counter-example?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You asked for his best example of a conservative lie.
That one's a worthy submission.
It doesn't matter how many believe it, it was a conservative lie according to him.

yes but an uber uber uber trivial one believed by almost no one whereas liberal lies are universally beleived and the very basis of the liberal campaign.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, very very slow.

 

[idb]

You asked for his best example of a conservative lie.
That one's a worthy submission.
It doesn't matter how many believe it, it was a conservative lie according to him.

yes but an uber uber uber trivial one believed by almost no one whereas liberal lies are universally beleived and the very basis of the liberal campaign.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, very very slow.

"yes but..."
Thank you, my point is confirmed.

 

[jtpr312]

secession is not legal...

even the rightiest of the right justices on the supreme court antonin scalia agrees.

but you know better, i'm sure.

I don't give a crap what some bought and paid for judge says, the FACT is that the Constitution makes NO mention of secession at all so it's not a matter for the 9 whores in DC to decide anyway. The FACT is that NY, VA and RI refused to ratify the Constitution unless their right to leave the union, at their discretion, was maintained, NO DENIAL of this was ever made, therefore their right to secede was and is valid and a right granted one state automatically goes to ALL states. And I never said I know better, I just gave you the historical facts from the actual poeple who where there, and the supporting documentation from the Virgninia delagation, which was introduced and passed by resolution PRIOR to them ever ratifying the Constitution. The opinion of the nine whore is irelevent as I don't recognize their right to decide what is and what isn't constitutional anyway as the Constitution DOES NOT give them that right, they usurped that right in Madison vs Marbury. The Constitutionality of law was and is given, by the Constitution, to the people, NOT to any supreme court and Thomas Jefferson warned us of what would happen if we ever allowed the court to usurp the power of "We the People", as represented by the Congress.

Thomas Jefferson
to William C. Jarvis in 1820:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

and to Edward Livingstone in 1825:

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."







The Supreme Court and Judicial Review
Judicial Review
The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court's nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.

Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power.

Powers of the Supreme Court
Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Judicial branch of the federal government and Section 2 of that article enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court. Here is Section 2, in part:

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
to Controversies between two or more States;
between a State and Citizens of another State;
between Citizens of different States;
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution
http://http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

Gee... thanks for your "analysis"...

again, i'll direct you to people who actually know what the constitution provides. given that you'd probably dismiss anyone people on the left respect, i'll direct your attention to that rightwingiest supreme court justice antonin scalia.

i'm pretty sure i'll take anyone's analysis over pretend constitutionalists'

I dismiss the OPINION of ANY supreme court justice on the matter for the reasons I gave you. 1. The Constitution makes no mention of secession. 2. I don't recognize the right of the supreme court to judicial review. As for you'll take, I don't care what you take, seeing as I've read your posts and know you would drink the kool aid every time.

 

[Toro]

I dismiss the OPINION of ANY supreme court justice on the matter for the reasons I gave you. 1. The Constitution makes no mention of secession. 2. I don't recognize the right of the supreme court to judicial review.

So what happened to you when you put this into practice IRL?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I dismiss the OPINION of ANY supreme court justice on the matter for the reasons I gave you. 1. The Constitution makes no mention of secession. 2. I don't recognize the right of the supreme court to judicial review.

So what happened to you when you put this into practice IRL?

He doesn't or he would be in jail for ignoring violating and breaking numerous laws. He is an internet tough guy that does not do as he preaches.

Tell ya what when he organizes and launches an armed rebellion get back to me on his honesty.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You asked for his best example of a conservative lie.
That one's a worthy submission.
It doesn't matter how many believe it, it was a conservative lie according to him.

yes but an uber uber uber trivial one believed by almost no one whereas liberal lies are universally beleived and the very basis of the liberal campaign.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, very very slow.

"yes but..."
Thank you, my point is confirmed.

you lack the IQ to know your point was that an uber uber trivial lie that no one believes is the "best" or most significant lie conservatives tell while admitting liberals tell huge huge important lies such as the top 1% don't pay their fair share when in fact they pay 40% of income taxes.

See why we are 100% sure a liberal will be slow?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In politics conservatives can repeat the same lie over and over again in the hope it’s perceived as true.

why not give your best example of this or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to do so??

Goodness, where to start…

Obama’s a Kenyan

too stupid but 100% liberal. I asked for your best example of a conservative lie and you use an example that less than 1% of conservatives believe. Does that mean you're slow, so very very slow??

Here's a best example of a substantive liberal lie. Do you have any idea what best or substantive mean???

The rich don't pay their fair share when the top1% pay 40% of all federal taxes and more than any other country on earth.

See why we are 100% ppositve a liberal will be slow, so very very slow.

We’ll go with ‘Obama’s a Muslim,’ then…

At this rate by the time Obama leaves office it could be 44 percent:

The increase in voters who think the president is Muslim is more pronounced among registered Republicans, especially conservative Republicans. In 2008, among both conservative Republicans and Republicans overall, 16 percent said Mr. Obama was Muslim. Now, 30 percent of Republicans and 34 percent of conservative Republicans think he is Muslim.

Conservatives more likely to think Obama is Muslim now than in 2008 - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[idb]

yes but an uber uber uber trivial one believed by almost no one whereas liberal lies are universally beleived and the very basis of the liberal campaign.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, very very slow.

"yes but..."
Thank you, my point is confirmed.

you lack the IQ to know your point was that an uber uber trivial lie that no one believes is the "best" or most significant lie conservatives tell while admitting liberals tell huge huge important lies such as the top 1% don't pay their fair share when in fact they pay 40% of income taxes.

See why we are 100% sure a liberal will be slow?

Yet again, you have changed the rules.
Now it has to be the "best" lie.
Tell me which one you think is the "best" conservative lie - it should be easier for you as you're the only one that knows the rules.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now it has to be the "best" lie.

you're a liberal idiot:

Quote: Originally Posted by idb
You asked for his best example of a conservative lie.
That one's a worthy submission.
It doesn't matter how many believe it, it was a conservative lie according to him.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It didn't "fail". The states legally seceded from the union, as was their Constitutional right, at which time the federal govt, illegally and immorally, invaded the Soveriegn state of Virginia and proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands of loyal, freedom loving, Constituion believing American Citizens so as to impose oppressive federal control over a free people. Virginia NEVER excluded their right to secede when they ratified, neither did NY or RI. There was NO denial of the right to secede prior to their ratification and people much smarter than either you or I, people who actually attended the conventions, wrote and signed the Constitution and wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence disagree with your pov.

secession is not legal...

even the rightiest of the right justices on the supreme court antonin scalia agrees.

but you know better, i'm sure.

I don't give a crap what some bought and paid for judge says, the FACT is that the Constitution makes NO mention of secession at all so it's not a matter for the 9 whores in DC to decide anyway. The FACT is that NY, VA and RI refused to ratify the Constitution unless their right to leave the union, at their discretion, was maintained, NO DENIAL of this was ever made, therefore their right to secede was and is valid and a right granted one state automatically goes to ALL states. And I never said I know better, I just gave you the historical facts from the actual poeple who where there, and the supporting documentation from the Virgninia delagation, which was introduced and passed by resolution PRIOR to them ever ratifying the Constitution. The opinion of the nine whore is irelevent as I don't recognize their right to decide what is and what isn't constitutional anyway as the Constitution DOES NOT give them that right, they usurped that right in Madison vs Marbury. The Constitutionality of law was and is given, by the Constitution, to the people, NOT to any supreme court and Thomas Jefferson warned us of what would happen if we ever allowed the court to usurp the power of "We the People", as represented by the Congress.

Thomas Jefferson
to William C. Jarvis in 1820:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

and to Edward Livingstone in 1825:

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."







The Supreme Court and Judicial Review
Judicial Review
The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court's nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.

Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power.
Powers of the Supreme Court
Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Judicial branch of the federal government and Section 2 of that article enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court. Here is Section 2, in part:

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
to Controversies between two or more States;
between a State and Citizens of another State;
between Citizens of different States;
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution
http://http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

Ignorant nonsense:

Judicial review was initially taken for granted and presumed to exist. Many members of the Framing generation presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to a constitution.

Why did the Framing generation presume that judicial review was to exist?

They held this presumption because of colonial American history. In England, the by-laws of corporations had been subject to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations. Eventually, legislation from all the English colonies was limited by the principle that it could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed around 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council and the crown reviewed over 8,500 colonial acts.

The Ethics of Prosecutors - Boston College

You may ‘not recognize’ judicial review to your heart’s content, for all the good it will do you. You’ll find no jurist – even the most rabid rightwing/libertarian wackjob – who would for a second propose the Supreme Court’s authority with regard to both judicial review and its interpretive authority as to what the Constitution means be abandoned.

 

[idb]

Now it has to be the "best" lie.

you're a liberal idiot:

Quote: Originally Posted by idb
You asked for his best example of a conservative lie.
That one's a worthy submission.
It doesn't matter how many believe it, it was a conservative lie according to him.

So, you do agree that's what you asked for...not the least trivial one?
Make up your mind.
Which way are those goal posts facing now?

You're still welcome to list your "best" conservative lie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"yes but..."
Thank you, my point is confirmed.

you lack the IQ to know your point was that an uber uber trivial lie that no one believes is the "best" or most significant lie conservatives tell while admitting liberals tell huge huge important lies such as the top 1% don't pay their fair share when in fact they pay 40% of income taxes.

See why we are 100% sure a liberal will be slow?

Yet again, you have changed the rules.
Now it has to be the "best" lie.
Tell me which one you think is the "best" conservative lie - it should be easier for you as you're the only one that knows the rules.

All conservative lies are the ‘best.’

Every lie the right contrives is meant to repeated again and again until it’s perceived as the ‘truth.’

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You’ll find no jurist – even the most rabid rightwing/libertarian wackjob – who would for a second propose the Supreme Court’s authority with regard to both judicial review and its interpretive authority as to what the Constitution means be abandoned.

you are profoundly slow and liberal. Scalia is 100% for reducing the interpertative authority of the Supreme Court. What planet have you been on???