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.
"Exactly the way we do" isn't working. The President is not doing his constitutional duty by enforcing the law. Is that what you support?
Your explanation of Article 1, Section 8 is really amazing. How would you keep illegals out?
Exactly the way we do. Have you been reading my posts? As I said above, I like to think the Constitution can still be used to govern a society that has undergone substantial economic and social changes since 1787 (that includes dealing with the effects on immigration of a large expansion of the economic differential between the U.S. and its southern neighbor). My point is that if you assumed the document is dead--or however you'd put it--and the exact letter is all that matters, the federal government can't keep them out. That requires interpretation and precedent, which you seem to be saying is some kind of perversion.
Dude, your argument is just dopey, comrade.
Dude, your argument is just dopey, comrade.
do you ever actually discuss or debate? all i see are one liner insults and conclusions with zero supporting docs, evidence, logic, etc...
Dude, your argument is just dopey, comrade.
do you ever actually discuss or debate? all i see are one liner insults and conclusions with zero supporting docs, evidence, logic, etc...
Dude, your argument is just dopey, comrade.
do you ever actually discuss or debate? all i see are one liner insults and conclusions with zero supporting docs, evidence, logic, etc...
Yurt, quit lying. I have corrected you about this as long as you have been on the board.
One, you make an opinion without evidence, and then you demand others refute your unsubstantiated claim with evidence. When you are told that you first have to support your claim with evidence, you start crying that others are being mean to you.
Two, shut up, Yurt, until you actually are willing to debate.
Living things can change easily.
The Constitution is designed not to.
Statists love to claim that the Constitution is a "living" document.
It isn't. It was never intended to be.
Those who claim it is are either liars or ignorant.
And bigrebnc1775 is corrected along with Yurt.
Kiddos, you have to support your opinions. Neither one of you clowns do that. When you do, then we can discuss like grown adults.
Keep following Rush's Rules, boys, keep looking like idiots.
Dude, your argument is just dopey, comrade.
do you ever actually discuss or debate? all i see are one liner insults and conclusions with zero supporting docs, evidence, logic, etc...
Yurt, quit lying. I have corrected you about this as long as you have been on the board.
One, you make an opinion without evidence, and then you demand others refute your unsubstantiated claim with evidence. When you are told that you first have to support your claim with evidence, you start crying that others are being mean to you.
Two, shut up, Yurt, until you actually are willing to debate.
Living things can change easily.
The Constitution is designed not to.
Statists love to claim that the Constitution is a "living" document.
It isn't. It was never intended to be.
Those who claim it is are either liars or ignorant.
I suspect you're a liar. If you are an attorney, I suspect you attended Trinity or Regent Law School, or one similar. To offer your opinion as fact is dishonest - of course that does not mean you are not a member of the bar - but to offer it is fact when others who read your posts know better, or at least have been trained differently, is stupid.
Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?
Beats the hell out of me stupidity I guess.
you mean a 'lib' attorney who knows EXACTLY the type of legal system we live under?
really?
I enjoy laughing at conservatives and liberals alike who scream bloody murder everytime a court gives a ruling they disagree with , claiming that the court is not doing their job. Never understanding, apparently, that our COTUS exactly set up a system that means the courts DO interpret the COTUS and therefor precedent DOES matter, to a point.
STRICTLY speaking, it is incorrect to say that the US is a common law nation. It is PARTLY a common law nation.
While it is true that our roots DO include the common law, it is also true that we have a large array of codified laws. In fact, our FOUNDING CHARTER, the Constitution, is obviously NOT a "common law" document. We have a MIX of common law and codified law.
We have stare decisis, but we also have very exacting codified laws that may often trump precedent. I don't deny that we have SOME principles of common law inherent in our judicial system because we do. But that's a different kettle of fish than claiming that we "are" a common law country.
Why do some people (mostly libs) say such erroneous things?
britain had codified laws too.
we are a common law country. the only code state is louisiana.
you are misstating the law in the context of a constitutional discussion.
I think you are incorrect.
You have common law or case law, and statutory law are youy saying statutory law is code law?
Ciommon law is seldom used for the most part the courts use statutory law
Precedent does matter. And it should to exactly the extent that we have, IN PART, a common law legal system.
But regardless of precedent and for all the power of stare decisis, if a law is passed that is consistent with the Constitution, such a law can trump any of that.
And when there has been no code law to trump precedent, still, even then, a court might (occasionally) refuse to abide by precedent. This too can be proper judicial behavior, depending on circumstances.
What is NOT proper is when a court chooses to ignore the limits and purposes of the Constitution in order to "reach" a determination that does violence to our form of government. And sadly, that does happen, too.
Frauds like Jokey can never acknowledge this. When such strained judicial determinations suit their partisan lie-beral political agenda, those assholes instead "defend" the indefensible via their unpersuasive ad hominem attacks on those of us who object to judicial tyranny.
This is why dishonest lie-beral stooges like Jokey have no credibility.
Sure, there are actual cases of courts abusing their power. But the claim is thrown out WAY too often, but liberals as well as conservatives alike.
And of course there are instances when a court will ignore precedent and interpret the COTUS in another direction entirely, which again is the way our COTUS was set up. It is scary how brilliant those folks were when writing the COTUS.
If the Courts engage in judicial activism somewhat less often than they are accused of it, that doesn't mean that they don't do it a whole lot more than should be considered tolerable. And there is a good reason why it has been identified as a dangerous and too frequent part of the judicial process.
But, no. When Courts "interpret" the Constitution differently on cases that are effectively similar, then the Constitution ceases to serve as a firm rein on governmental action. It cannot be the case that one court says the Constitution permits certain legislative agendas while another case says that the Constitution prohibits that same legislative activity. That's actually little better (maybe no better) than anarchy. It leads to a state of governance where there are no boundaries and that is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prohibit.
britain had codified laws too.
we are a common law country. the only code state is louisiana.
you are misstating the law in the context of a constitutional discussion.
I think you are incorrect.
You have common law or case law, and statutory law are youy saying statutory law is code law?
Ciommon law is seldom used for the most part the courts use statutory law
that doesn't make sense. when it comes to HOW those statutes are interpreted, that's where caselaw comes in... like in ledbetter... in one swoop, the court destroyed the statute by a manipulation of the statute of limitations requirement.
that's pretty basic.
And bigrebnc1775 is corrected along with Yurt.
Kiddos, you have to support your opinions. Neither one of you clowns do that. When you do, then we can discuss like grown adults.
Keep following Rush's Rules, boys, keep looking like idiots.
How much materal do you require? Denial never changes the facts and that is what you try to do. It's your attempt in saying nothing was proven.
The notion that the constitution is a 'living document' is an absolute joke. It is an excuse when following it becomes inconvenient. What does it even mean that the constitution is a living document? Can anyone explain why it needs to be a living document? What does making it a living document, allow that being a strictly interpreted document can not? Face facts people. The concept of a living document is code for ignored document. It's a term to dupe people into thinking some program or law that isn't constitutional at all somehow now that it is a 'living document'.
And bigrebnc1775 is corrected along with Yurt.
Kiddos, you have to support your opinions. Neither one of you clowns do that. When you do, then we can discuss like grown adults.
Keep following Rush's Rules, boys, keep looking like idiots.
How much materal do you require? Denial never changes the facts and that is what you try to do. It's your attempt in saying nothing was proven.
Son, you have offered no facts to support your assertion.
Do that, please, and we can discuss.
